Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Attack on Inflation

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a ministerial broadcast in English and in Welsh to the people of Wales to explain to every Welsh household the expected consequences for their standard of living of the Government's policies to contain inflation.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Morris): No, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's broadcast of 20th August drove the points home.

Sir A. Meyer: I am very sorry to hear that. Will the Secretary of State not now admit that if inflation is to be conquered there has to be a sharp drop in living standards, including the living standards of Socialist trade unionists? Is he aware that the Government's failure to bring this fact home at an earlier stage is a direct cause of the present record high level of unemployment in Wales? Will he further admit that if the Government persist in their Socialist policies of nationalisation, lavish Government expenditure and vindictive treatment of business, the dole queues next year will be 50 per cent. longer than they are now?

Mr. Morris: In view of the record of the Conservative Party, which the hon. Gentleman supported, I am surprised that he has the face to make the statement that he has now made. I assure him that it is the Government's intention to carry out their policies as expressed in their manifesto, on which they successfully fought the last election. The Government's prime aim is and always has been to cure inflation.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Secretary of State agree that with the unacceptably high level of unemployment in many parts of Wales, the immediate need now is a cash injection to create work over the next few months in order at least to alleviate the worst effects of unemployment until the economy can reflate and job opportunities increase?

Mr. Morris: I am sure that in that respect the hon. Gentleman will welcome the steps taken by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Employment on 24th September with that aim in mind.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State bear in mind the lavish promises made by the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) that if we were in the Common Market there would be more jobs and a lot of investment available? In fact, we now have massive unemployment and a decrease in the level of investment.

Mr. Morris: Whether we were in or out of the Common Market we would still be faced with the problems of inflation and unemployment. We are determined to conquer both.

Dairy Industry

Mr. Geraint Howells: asked the Secretary of State for Wales, if he is satisfied with the state of the dairy industry in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Morris: I and the other agricultural Ministers have been considering, as a matter of urgency, what further measures are open to the Government to improve the position of dairy farmers, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is actively engaged on this issue in Luxembourg this week. He will be making a statement as soon as possible.

Mr. Howells: Will the Minister give an assurance that he will do everything in his power to prevent milk rationing this Christmas? Does he have any plans to import liquid milk?

Mr. Morris: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am very conscious of the problems of the milk industry. I am concerned by the figures revealed in the last June return. On rationing, although milk output has declined in recent months


there is no reason to think that milk rationing will be necessary.

Mr. Biffen: Has the Secretary of State represented to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the necessity for an urgent revaluation of the green pound?

Mr. Morris: I am not in a position to tell the hon. Gentleman what representations do or do not take place between Ministers. Obviously, the revaluation of the green pound is one of the matters which is of great concern to the farming industry.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Is the Secretary of State aware of the impact of the current milk situation not only on the income levels of farmers but on the job security of those employed in creameries? There are two creameries in my constituency and I am gravely concerned about the short-term position and the long-term viability of those units.

Mr. Morris: Yes, I am certainly fully aware of the position. Last week I met the two regional panel chairmen, who advised my right hon. Friend and myself concerning both North and South Wales. They set out their views to me at some length. In recent weeks I have also met one of the farming unions which, among other matters, set out to me the concern of the manufacturing industry.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: But what is the Minister actually doing, other than being concerned? He has said that he is concerned about the June returns. They should not have surprised him. All the indicators have been there for over a year. What is he actually doing apart from being concerned?

Mr. Morris: If the hon. Gentleman had done me the favour of listening to my original answer he would have heard me say that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is engaged on this matter in Luxembourg this week and will make a statement as soon as possible.

Industrial Production

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what was the index of industrial production in Wales in the second quarter of 1975.

Mr. John Morris: The provisional estimate of the Index of Industrial Production for Wales in the second quarter of 1975, based on a figure of 100 in 1970, is 94.

Mr. Edwards: Does the Secretary of State recall that when I asked a similar Question on 14th April he gave me a reply like the one he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) and said that it was all the fault of the Conservative Government? Now that the Government have been in office for about 20 months, now that industrial production has plunged to a level far below that of 1970, and certainly way below that in the three-day working week, whom will he now blame? Will he for the first time acknowledge that the prime responsibility lies on the policies of the Government, and in particular, their reckless use of expenditure before corresponding increased production has been obtained?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman presents a very strange picture, because although in this House he advocates cuts in public expenditure, on any matters affecting his constituency he is a major advocate of public expenditure. I find his arguments remarkable in the extreme.

Local Authority Mortgages

Mr. Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with representatives of building societies designed to make the societies more flexible in their lending policies to meet the needs of those who would in normal circumstances receive local authority mortgages.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what advice he has given to district councils in Wales about lending for local authority mortgages.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alec Jones): As I told the House on 7th July, local authority mortgage lending in Wales had to be suspended while a review was made of amounts committed. This review showed that the amount provided for local authority mortgage lending in Wales in 1975–76 had already been fully taken up. I cannot say at present when lending might be resumed.
I am, however, glad to tell the House that the Building Societies Association has agreed to make an additional £5 million available to borrowers in Wales. This is intended to help fill the gap caused by the suspension of local authority lending; I am grateful to the building societies for their co-operation. Discussions are now proceeding between the Welsh Office, the Council for the Principality and the building societies on the application of this money.

Mr. Anderson: This extra money is welcome, but will it go to those people, on limited means who are finding it difficult to obtain deposits and wish to buy the smaller terraced houses—of which there are many in Wales—and who would otherwise simply be on the council house waiting list? What evidence is there that the building societies will modify their policies in this respect? If they will not, should they not be made to do so?

Mr. Alec Jones: This £5 million from the building societies is certainly an extra £5 million worth of business, some of which might have been undertaken by local authorities had it not been for the freeze. We have been holding discussions with the building societies and with the Council for the Principality. Whilst broad agreement has been reached on the sharing out of this money, it is somewhat early to make a detailed announcement, since there are further details to be discussed.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that, on past performance, money lent in Wales through the building societies has not noticeably found its way to people on low incomes, people wanting older property, and self-employed persons? Is he aware that, because of the preponderance of older property in Wales and of house buyers on low incomes, the withdrawal of local authority lending is a severe blow? Will he consider making up the deficiency by withdrawing tax relief on mortgages to people on higher incomes?

Mr. Alec Jones: The question of tax relief is not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We appreciated from the beginning that our decision to restrict mortgages for local authority lending at this time would present a serious difficulty to many people in Wales. There was considerable over-

spending, and in view of the national economic and financial situation we felt that it was the only prudent step to be taken at this time. We are grateful to the building societies for coming partly to our help in this matter.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Can the Under-Secretary hold out no glimmer of hope about the restoration of local authority lending, which was brought to an abrupt end without any warning whatsoever? Does he not think that it would be far better to restore local authority lending than to spend between £50 million and £60 million implementing the Community Land Bill?

Mr. Alec Jones: First, I do not think that the Community Land Bill is related to the question of local authority lending.

Mr. Roberts: It is for housing.

Mr. Alec Jones: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, he will get an answer. It is not related to local authority lending. But we are aware of the tremendous difficulties. It is somewhat early to make an announcement for next year, but we are holding discussions with the Council for the Principality to try to ensure that in the next financial year we establish priorities acceptable to the Government and to the local authorities in Wales to ensure that money for housing in Wales is spent in areas of greatest need.

Mr. Grist: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that cutting off local authority mortgages at the same time as allowing the municipalisation of private housing demonstrates a strange language of priorities?

Mr. Alec Jones: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the acquisition of houses was also stopped at the same time

Water Charges

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if Her Majesty's Government accept the recommendations of the Daniel Committee concerning water charges in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Alec Jones: The charging issue covered by the report is of such complexity and importance that it needs to be considered as a matter of priority and


in the context of the forthcoming review of the Water Act which was announced on 15th August. Preparatory studies on charging and on the powers of a central authority are in hand, and when these are completed we intend to issue a consultation paper early next year.

Mr. Wigley: I think that the people of Wales will be very amazed at the extraordinary delay that there has been in the publication of this report. Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that the delay between March and August in the publication of the report, if it did nothing else, should at least have given time for studying the complex problems to which it relates? Does he realise that there will be amazement in Wales if, by the next financial year, no formula is forthcoming which will alleviate the burden being put on the rates by water charges? Will the Government give top priority to sorting that problem out?

Mr. Alec Jones: It is because the Government regard the matter with urgency that immediately on publication of the report we set up a committee to investigate the complicated recommendations and suggestions included in the Daniel Report. There was no delay in publishing the report from the Government's point of view. As soon as the report was received, it was sent to the printers. A number of factors, including industrial action, for instance, prevented its becoming available for issue until early in August.

Sir Raymond Gower: In view of the fact that in any event, owing to inflation and other circumstances, water charges are likely to be rather high in the years ahead, will the Government contemplate extending to water charges the rate rebate which applies to ordinary local government rates?

Mr. Alec Jones: The hon. Gentleman has given us a good example of the way in which the Opposition on the one hand call on us to reduce public expenditure and, on the other, when it suits their political convenience, call on us to increase it.

Pontypool (New Inn Bypass)

Mr. Abse: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he has received his

inspector's report on the New Inn bypass inquiry; and when he will be making his adjudication.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Barry Jones): Yes, Sir. It is under examination but it is too early to forecast when my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to announce his decision.

Mr. Abse: I appreciate that the Secretary of State has to give very careful consideration if justice is to be obtained for all the representations which have been made, but does the Minister under stand that a considerable number of building and other schemes are waiting in a vacuum until a decision has been made? May we therefore have, as soon as possible, a decision which is commensurate with justice?

Mr. Barry Jones: Yes, certainly. I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern. Indeed, he has campaigned vigorously for the people in that valley. I cannot say when the scheme will begin, because that depends on the completion of the statutory procedures and the availability of resources.

Newport

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will pay an official visit to Newport.

Mr. John Morris: I have no immediate plans for doing so, Sir.

Mr. Hughes: With 4, 000 families on the waiting list, plus massive redevelopment problems, Newport has become the housing black spot of Wales. Bearing in mind that the Secretary of State has now been in office for nearly two years, is it not time that he paid us an official visit?

Mr. Morris: I am deeply aware of the acute housing problems not only in my hon. Friend's constituency but in other parts of Wales. If he is suggesting that I have not been to Newport or Gwent, I remind him that I have paid three visits to Newport, on two of which I had the pleasure of his company. There have been six ministerial visits by Welsh Office Ministers to Newport and there have been 21 other ministerial visits to the county of Gwent and several by myself.

Unemployment

Mr. Wyn Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from local authorities in Wales concerning the present level of unemployment.

Mr. John Morris: A number of authorities have expressed their concern to me about the rate of unemployment in their particular areas.

Mr. Roberts: I appreciate that the Government's recruitment subsidy scheme for school leavers comes into effect today, but what is the Minister proposing to do about those young people who do not want to work immediately but would prefer to go on technical college courses, but cannot do so because the money is not available to those colleges? The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that this is a serious problem in North Wales, particularly in Bangor and Colwyn Bay.

Mr. Morris: The number of places in technical colleges is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I take note of the hon. Gentleman's questions, and I shall consult my right hon. Friend further on this issue.

Mr. Anderson: Would my right hon. and learned Friend care to comment on the success of the recent meeting between the Wales TUC and the Prime Minister on this very subject?

Mr. Morris: Last Friday, the Wales TUC discussed with a number of colleagues, including my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, its deep concern about unemployment. It was a very useful discussion, in that one was able, for a substantial period of time, to go over the many issues of deep concern to the Wales TUC.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Does the Secretary of State realise that in the present crisis we need more than just useful discussions, that he does not talk his way out of the problem by blaming me for pressing one priority instead of another in my constituency—hospital beds instead of the re-organisation of education—and that the present rate of unemployment is caused by the Government's failure to act last year, by their excessive expendi-

tures, and by their ruthless squeeze on profits, and that the unemployment that will arise when they start to take action against inflation will have to be added to the present shameful levels?

Mr. Morris: I am in a difficulty in trying to analyse the question that the hon. Gentleman is asking. He must make up his mind. He will be labelled a political schizophrenic if he cannot decide whether he is for or against public expenditure in relation to his own parish.

Mr. Wigley: Further to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's comment about the meeting with the Wales TUC, will he say whether the Government have given any commitment for additional funds to Wales for solving the economic problem and whether they have committed themselves to meeting the whole of the £18 million asked for, or a specific part of it?

Mr. Morris: The Government, in the discussions headed by the Prime Minister, made it clear that there was nothing additional to the measures which were announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 24th September and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, but we agreed to consider the matter further and to have another meeting with the Wales TUC in the autumn and the early part of the new year to monitor progress.

Mr. Geraint Howells: What representations, if any, has the Secretary of State had from both farmers' unions in Wales about unemployment?

Mr. Morris: I have recently met one of the farming unions in Wales. It is deeply concerned about the problems of the milk industry but in the course of the discussions it raised a number of other issues. I hope fairly soon to meet the other union, and I am sure that it will set out its concern about milk and other issues.

Economic Prospects

Sir Raymond Gower: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will state his estimate of economic prospects in Wales during the next year.

Mr. Barry Jones: During the next year the economic prospects in Wales as for


the United Kingdom as a whole will depend very largely on the success of the Government's measures to reduce the rate of inflation.

Sir Raymond Gower: In view of the answers given by the Secretary of State for Wales to my hon. Friends the Members for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) and Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he and his colleagues, and the Government in general, accept any responsibility for the terrible plight, terrible economic position and grotesquely high level of unemployment which the country now faces?

Mr. Barry Jones: The problem is world wide, and the nature of the question indicated that at least in the opinion of the hon. Gentleman some of the blame for some of the problems to date rests with Members on the benches opposite. However, I can give the hon. Gentleman a little cheer. As a Member for South Wales, he should not forget the momentum of the M4 road building programme there. By the end of this year £90 million worth of road works will be taking place on 30 miles of motorway in South Wales, and this must inevitably help employment prospects in the road haulage and quarrying areas.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Is not the time opportune for the Government to engage in a massive housing drive, bearing in mind that materials are available which do not have to be imported, and many men are in the dole queue? Such a drive would have the effect of taking men out of the dole queue and at the same time curing a social and economic problem.

Mr. Barry Jones: There is a housing drive. The Government recognise the problem as it exists in Wales, and in particular in Newport.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman say how many miles of motorway are planned for North Wales?

Mr. Barry Jones: The hon. Gentleman knows that the A55 proposal in terms of the Colwyn Bay area is going to a public inquiry, and when the M4 is finished in South Wales the Welsh Office road priority will be in North Wales, and the dualling of the A55.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRY

Aerospace Industry

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he has met representatives of the Society of British Aerospace Constructors during the recess.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State held a meeting with representatives of the society on 2nd September and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the council on 24th September.

Mr. Tebbit: Were any of those gentlemen able to persuade the SBAC that the cancellation of British missile systems in favour of foreign competitors and the Government's failure to make any constructive comment to the EEC on the future of the British aerospace industry are good omens for the future of our industry under the possible management of this Government?

Mr. Kaufman: I cannot reveal the matters that were discussed when my right hon. Friend met the SBAC. The hon. Gentleman asks whether we were able to persuade the Society. We were able to persuade the electorate that the aircraft industry should be nationalised.

Mr. Lambie: Will my hon. Friend tell the House whether the representations received from the Society of British Aero-space Constructors included proposals about the future of Scottish Aviation Limited? Will he say when he will give his decision on the proposals that he has received from Scottish Aviation Limited on the future of the Jet-stream, to maintain the Scottish aerospace industry?

Mr. Kaufman: I shall refer to my right hon. Friend the point made by my hon. Friend, and we shall respond as soon as we can.

Mr. Jessel: What will the hon. Gentleman do to make the aerospace industry aware that its export prospects will greatly improve if it will get into the habit of manufacturing quieter aircraft?

Mr. Kaufman: If the hon. Gentleman is implying that Concorde is not a good export prospect he had better travel in


that plane with many distinguished foreign and Commonwealth statesmen and see how favourably they react to it.

Mr. Atkinson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is his intention to publish the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Bill some time in this coming December? If that is the case, will he invite the trade unions involved to submit their ideas for the inclusion of both Westland and Rolls-Royce in the future structure of the nationalised industry?

Mr. Kaufman: December is a good deal later than we intended. We intend to publish the Bill very soon, with the intention of getting the industry into public ownership as quickly as possible. We have been in regular contact with the trade unions and others about the form of the Bill and the future form of the industry.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On the Government's present plans, can the hon. Gentleman say how many people at the moment employed in the British aircraft industry expect to lose their jobs by this time next year?

Mr. Kaufman: It is difficult to speculate on how many would lose their jobs if we did not take the necessary and progressive step of putting the industry into public ownership.

Aircraft Industry

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what recent representations he has received asking him to abandon his proposals to nationalise the aircraft industry.

Mr. Kaufman: Since the Bill was published, my right hon. Friend has had some half a dozen such letters. He has received many more from those who favour the Bill and wish it to be enacted as soon as possible.

Mr. Adley: So as to ascertain fully the views of the industry, why does not the Minister conduct a referendum among those who work in it and discover whether they want this plan? Is he not aware that this irrelevant measure will do nothing to solve the crisis created by this Government? Is he further aware that when his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was appointed many people hoped that we would see the end of

"Bemifoolery", and are disappointed now to see that it has been replaced by "extra-Varley-ganza"?

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman maintains his normal level of wit and charm. The present Secretary of State is pursuing policies identical to those of his predecessor—policies which were endorsed by the British people at two General Elections. As for the wishes of the trade unionists, if those who work in the industry had had their way it would have been nationalised in the last Session.

Mr. Lane: If the Minister removed his blinkers, would he not be aware that there is great uneasiness among a number of the smaller companies which will be affected, on the fringe of the main industry, including several in East Anglia? In view of the Government's failure to make out a convincing case for this measure, would it not be better now to leave it for good in the pigeon hole?

Mr. Kaufman: We made out the case and it was accepted by the electorate.

Motor Industry

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a further statement on the position of the motor car industry.

Mr. Kaufman: I have as yet nothing to add to previous statements.

Mr. Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when the trade deficit is serious and the car industry faces a major crisis it is ludicrous and unpatriotic for public authorities, financed by rates and taxes, to spend a great deal of money buying foreign cars? If so, what will he do about it? Will he tell my constituents working in the motor industry whether the Government are free, if they wish, to put import controls on foreign cars, or whether it will first be necessary to get the permission of the Common Market?

Mr. Kaufman: I hope that all public authorities will ensure that they buy British cars. The hon. Gentleman will know from his own experience that the Government cannot compel them to do so, but their good sense should compel them to buy British. There has been discussion of import controls, and the Secretary of State for Trade has discussed


these matters in Japan. We shall clear whatever we have to with the EEC, the vote having gone the way it did last June, but we shall act independently as and when we need to and as and when we can.

Mr. Ward: As strategic decisions on the future of the automotive industry depend in part on discussions that my hon. Friend has been having with that industry on future energy-saving proposals, will he say whether the discussions that he has been having since the beginning of the year, and which he last said—on 13th June—were continuing, have yet been concluded?

Mr. Kaufman: I have nothing to add at present, but I shall keep my hon. Friend informed.

Mr. Hall-Davis: Since the future of Leyland is so important to the well-being of the motor industry as a whole, now that the new chairman has been appointed, will the Minister confirm that the board, which has the legal responsibility for the conduct of the company's affairs, will be free to pursue policies which it considers in the company's long-term interests, and will not be restricted to implementing the recommendations of the Ryder Report if it wishes to depart from them?

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman should study the statement by Sir Ronald Edwards when he was appointed. It was made clear that the board of Leyland has freedom of action, but he made it clear that he would take fully into account what the Prime Minister said when he made his statement about Leyland earlier this year, namely, that the Ryder Report should form the basis of the re-organisation.

Mr. Carter: On the subject of the Secretary of State for Trade's discussions in Japan this summer on the import of Japanese cars and the voluntary agreement he obtained to restrict those imports, will my hon. Friend confirm that if that voluntary agreement fails his Department will lend support to the view that there should be some form of compulsory restriction?

Mr. Kaufman: The question of import restrictions is a matter for the Secretary of State for Trade, in consultation with

his colleagues. We shall make whatever recommendations we regard as appropriate in the light of the situation, but the very best thing is that the British motor industry—Leyland and the other companies—should be competitive and should sell goods that people wish to buy at prices they can afford. In that way we shall have a fully competitive industry, which can beat world competition.

Shotton Steel Works

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects to make a statement about the future of steel making at BSC Shotton.

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will now make a statement on the future of Shotton Steel Works.

Mr. Kaufman: An announcement will be made as soon as the Government have completed their consideration of all the issues involved.

Sir A. Meyer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the statistics on which the British Steel Corporation bases its case for transferring Shotton's steel-making capacity to Port Talbot have now been utterly discredited? If the BSC relies not on those discredited figures but on the fact that Shotton is too far removed from deep water to merit further expansion, when, none the less, both strike-torn Llanwern and Scunthorpe are much further from deep water, what possible justification is there for the Government's endorsing this aspect of BSC strategy?

Mr. Kaufman: I read the hon. Gentleman's interesting letter in The Times to this effect the other day. These are matters which are being taken into account in considering this problem, but we must remember that under the previous administration's White Paper Shotton's iron and steel making was due to close in the second half of this decade. I seem to recall that the hon. Gentleman voted for that White Paper.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that if a full social costing of this project were undertaken it would be found that the cost of keeping the works open and the cost of closing it were not much different, and that the benefit which would come from keeping it open would give additional steel capacity which might be


needed in times of expansion? Will he give favourable and early consideration to a definite announcement that the works will be kept open?

Mr. Kaufman: The matters which both hon. Members have mentioned are arguable. It is because we need to consider matters like this and all other relevant considerations that we are waiting until the right decision is made rather than hurrying into any decision.

Scottish Trades Union Congress

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will make arrangements to meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss the industrial situation.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland met the General Council of the Scottish Trades Union Congress on 10th October, when, among other things, the industrial situation was discussed.

Mr. Canavan: Does my hon. Friend know that the STUC held a special conference on 24th September to discuss unemployment in Scotland, where, for example, in Kilsyth, in my constituency, a total of 14·5 per cent. of males are unemployed? On that same day, the multi-national company, Coats-Paton, which ruthlessly closed down its factory in Kilsyth at the turn of the year, announced a further 550 redundancies in the Central Region. Is it not about time that the Government started taking some radical Socialist initiatives with regard to the ownership and management of industry, so as to stop this exploitation of workers and continue support for the Labour Government in Scotland?

Mr. Mackenzie: I was of course well aware of the STUC conference, which, unhappily, I was not able to attend. I also know of some of the issues discussed there, which I understand were also discussed with the Secretary of State for Scotland when he met the STUC just the other day. As to what are or are not radical measures, I should have thought that some of those which we have introduced, in the shape of the Industry Bill—to set up planning agreements and the National Enterprise Board and, above all, we hope, by the

end of this year, the Scottish Development Agency—would be a considerable help in alleviating the unemployment in Scotland.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one industry in Scotland for which we have tried a number of radical Socialist initiatives is shipbuilding, and that we are facing an acute crisis in that industry? Did he discuss shipbuilding with the STUC, and has he any plans to deal with the acute problem affecting a large number of jobs in areas of high unemployment?

Mr. Mackenzie: We are all conscious of the problems of shipbuilding. Those of us, like the hon. Gentleman and me, who represent Clydeside constituencies, have been concerned about it all our adult lives. Some of the measures we now propose will help the industry. That is why we are continuing to press ahead—against the wishes, I know, of hon. Members opposite—with taking part of this industry and the aircraft industry into public ownership.

Mr. Crawford: Does the Minister agree that one of the best ways of curing unemployment in Scotland would be to give the Scottish Development Agency a proper budget of about £300 million a year, as has been suggested by my party? Does he further agree that it is humbug for representatives of the Labour Party to call for a policy of reflation because the vast majority of them voted against such a policy in Scotland during the Counter-inflation measures?

Mr. Mackenzie: The hon. Gentleman is asking questions which should be directed to the Secretary of State for Scotland. The budget of the SDA is ongoing.

Mr. Heseltine: Will the Minister of State explain to those facing unemployment in the shipbuilding industry that there is a positive deterrent to investment in that industry because the Government have published their Bill for nationalisation with totally inadequate terms of compensation for future investment?

Mr. Mackenzie: I have studied the shipbuilding industry for many years. The deficiencies in that industry have not arisen because of the publication of the


Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. They existed a long time before that. The problem of under-investment in shipbuilding existed for a number of years when the Opposition were in office.

Norton Villiers Triumph

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what action has he taken subsequent to his last statement on the motor cycle industry to safeguard public funds committed to Norton Villiers Triumph and the Meriden Co-operative; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Kaufman: It is not the practice to disclose details of the Department's commercial relationships with industry, for reasons of commercial security. The Department is receiving regular monitoring returns from these two companies.

Mr. Miller: Is the Minister aware that my constituents who work in the Small Heath factory are considerably alarmed by the fact that no decision has been reached on the future of that enterprise which, in turn, depends upon a Government decision? The matter has been rotating for three months between merchant bankers, Government Departments and the firms concerned. When shall we have a decision?

Mr. Kaufman: We announced our decision before the Summer Recess.

Mr. Tomlinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that Conservative Members would do far more for the British motor cycle industry if they occasionally stood up and congratulated Meriden Co-operative on its resumption of exports to the United States—exports which would have been lost had the Conservatives had their way?

Mr. Kaufman: Meriden Co-operative is a brave venture, which deserves every encouragement. The present state of the British motor cycle industry goes back at least to the actions of Mr. Christopher Chataway when he was Minister for Industrial Development, and cannot be laid at the door of this Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

London Civil Servants

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what restrictions are

placed on the movement of individual civil servants who wish to transfer from London to the provinces on comparable work.

The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Charles R. Morris): There are no service-wide restrictions, and Departments endeavour to meet all reasonable requests, having regard to the availability of replacement staff and the need to provide an effective service. In general, priority is given to cases where there is hardship or domestic or other distress.

Mr. Hooley: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that reply. As it is the policy of the Government to decentralise Civil Service activities from London to the provinces, what is the point of putting obstacles in the way of individuals who, for personal reasons, wish to go from London to, say, Sheffield?

Mr. Morris: My hon. Friend has expressed an understandable point of view. People find difficulty in differentiating between the dispersal of Civil Service posts and the transfer of individual civil servants. The transfer of individual civil servants depends on the availability of posts at Sheffield and other provincial locations.

DEVOLUTION

Mr. Canavan: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will make a further statement on the Government's plans for devolution.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): The Government hope to publish a further White Paper on devolution next month, which will set out conprehensively the constitutional machinery for the assemblies and the powers they will exercise. My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot anticipate now the decisions which will be announced in the White Paper.

Mr. Canavan: Although there are differences of opinion about what specific powers the Scottish Assembly should have, will my right hon. Friend remind the House that the setting up of such an assembly is the policy of the Labour Party, the Scottish Labour Party and the


Scottish Trades Union Congress, that it was included in the Labour Party Manifesto and the Queen's Speech earlier this Session, and that the overwhelming majority of opinion among the Scottish people is that the Government must not renege on this promise and must proceed with as much haste as possible to set up a meaningful assembly with meaningful devolution rather than separatism?

Mr. Short: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Labour Party fought the General Election on the clearest promises about this matter, as did all the parties. Every party went to the last General Election with a clear promise that it would set up an elected Scottish Assembly.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Scottish Office civil servants would like guidance or assurance on the question whether it is likely that they will be answerable to the assembly or to the Secretary of State, or whether there will be two Scottish officers doing the same job and probably conflicting with each other?

Mr. Short: That point will be dealt with in clear terms in the White Paper. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I visited Scotland three weeks ago and had discussions with the staff of the Scottish Office.

Mr. Henderson: Does the Lord President recall that he indicated to the House that the White Paper would be published by the time we resumed? He is now talking of a further delay. Will he give a definite date when the legislation will be placed before the House?

Mr. Short: I am not aware that I promised that the White Paper would be published before the House reassembled. I said that the White Paper would be published in the autumn. It will be published in November. That is, in a sense, still autumn. It will probably be the most important constitutional document of this century, and it is important that we get it right and allow people sufficient time to consider it.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Will the Minister agree that, by tradition, White Papers have been discussion documents? Do I gather from what he has said, which would appear to confirm the rumours

which are widely held, that the White Paper will set out in wholly inflexible detail what the Government propose to do and will offer the public no choice—even, if I may say so, down to the shape of the Chamber—least of all on the question of electoral reform despite the recent polls in the Sun? Would it not therefore be more sensible to proceed directly to a Bill on devolution and to allow that a full and proper time for debate?

Mr. Short: No, Sir. This matter affects the future and cohesion of the United Kingdom, and it is extremely important that we proceed carefully. The White Paper will set out a carefully devised plan which is one coherent whole. Although it represents firm Government decisions, it is certainly not inflexible. We shall hear what everyone has to say about it and will, as far as possible, take into account all the substantial and significant comments made upon it.

Mr. Buchan: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many Labour Members will welcome the flat statement that at long last the White Paper will be published in November? Does he agree that no White Paper in history has been leaked more voluminously than this over the past 12 months, and that perhaps a short period of silence should be welcomed by all parties until we see the Bill in the flesh? We shall then be able to deal with the main problem, which is the real crisis facing this country.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that if an acceptable form of devolution to Northern Ireland is agreed it will not be kept waiting because of the time it might take to reach agreement on schemes of devolution to Scotland and Wales? Will the right hon. Gentleman remove apprehensions felt in Northern Ireland on this point?

Mr. Short: Yes, I can certainly give that assurance.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Lord President give an assurance that the further delay in the publication of this White Paper in no way reflects a change of policy by the Government brought about by pressure by the Civil Service, as has been suggested in some newspapers?

Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman is referring to the article in The Sunday


Times in which the conclusions were completely false and untrue. It is true that the article was based upon a leak which was extremely serious and which is being investigated. However, the conclusions, which were drawn from an old official paper, were completely false and untrue. I can give that assurance. There is no change of policy. The slight delay—it is not a great delay—is due entirely, first, to the complexity of the Bill and, secondly, to the length of the White Paper.

Mr. Whitelaw: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has just said that the White Paper will be a major constitutional document, affecting the whole of the United Kingdom? Will he therefore accept that in these circumstances it is extremely important that this House should have the opportunity of considering what the White Paper says and that the Government should have the opportunity of considering what the House thinks of the White Paper before legislation is placed before it? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that any other course could be counter-productive, and could lead to grave difficulties in the House of Commons?

Mr. Short: I agree with the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. This will be done. There will be an opportunity to debate the White Paper before Christmas and the Bill will be published after that, in the light not only of the debate in the House but of any significant comments received from any quarters.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Parliamentary Procedure

Mr. Tomlinson: asked the Lord President of the Council when he plans to move to set up a Select Committee to examine the workings of Parliament.

Mr. Edward Short: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) on 7th July.—[Vol. 894, c. 23.]

Mr. Tomlinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we have had the Third Report from the Select Committee on Procedure, that it was an abortive report because of the statement made by my right hon. Friend on 19th May, and that

the House is waiting for action on the promised radical look at the way in which the House of Commons is doing its business? Hon. Members will not be patient for much longer in waiting for details of the Select Committee which is to do what was promised several months ago.

Mr. Short: I promised a Select Committee in the new Session of Parliament. That Select Committee will be set up in the new Session of Parliament.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is nothing much wrong with the workings of the House of Commons but there is a great deal wrong with the workings of Government? If the Government would legislate less we should not need to set up a Committee, because we should have less work to do, and that would be to the benefit of the country as well as the House of Commons.

Mr. Short: There is a great deal wrong with the working of the Opposition, also, from what I saw on television last week.

Dr. Bray: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the question of the proceedings of the House is for the Select Committee on Procedure, with appropriate terms of reference?

Mr. Short: That is a point of view, but I suggested—and I asked any hon. Members who were interested to discuss it with me—that as this was a major radical view it might be worth considering the possibility of a mixed Committee of eminent outsiders and a majority of Members of the House.

Mr. Peyton: I hope that the Leader of the House will not too lightly dismiss the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis). Will he give careful consideration to the idea of examining the whole working of Government, the Departments of which have become more and more swollen and more and more inept as time has gone on? I am not blaming individual civil servants. The organisation of Government has not been looked at for far too long, and far too often Parliament is made the scapegoat for the Government's ineptitude.

Mr. Short: That is a different question, which is for the Prime Minister and not


for me. I am concerned with the working of the House. I am not entirely satisfied about it at present. There is a case for a radical review of the way we do our work and the functioning of Parliament in a modern democracy in the last quarter of the twentieth century.

Crockery

Dr. Glyn: asked the Lord President of the Council how many British tenders were requested before the order was given for House of Commons china; and whether tenders were asked from countries other than Germany.

Mr. Dunn: I have been asked to reply.
Inquiries were made to operative prices from the following suppliers: Royal Tuscan, better known as Wedgwood; and Dunn Bennett and Co., which is part of the Royal Doulton group.
The only other firm approached was Rosenthal of West Germany.

Dr. Glyn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a House of Commons matter? Which other hon. Members endorsed the decision? Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the great public interest in this matter and the possible effect of the decision on our exports? Is it not possible to have a system whereby crockery is ordered in stages rather than all at once? As the Lord President is present, will he say whether he will consider the setting up of a Committee to look into the whole matter, so that it can be cleared up once and for all?

Mr. Dunn: To take the last matter first, a special committee has already been set up to inquire into and recommend to the House on the future and the re-organisation of the Refreshment Department. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the responsibility for purchasing all the requirements of the Department rests upon the management, and because the situation has never been clearly defined some problems have arisen. I would prefer a proper tendering system in which specifications were issued, quotations requested and tenders received, tabulated and opened independently. The recommendation could then be made to the appropriate Officers of the House. We do not have the specialised staff or the accommodation to enable us to undertake that at present.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is my hon. Friend able to confirm a Press report that the contract was for £20, 000 and that £300 was saved? If so, was the £20, 000 paid in hard currency and was the saving made in soft currency? If so, was it a saving?

Mr. Dunn: The purchase was for £12, 200, which was paid in sterling. There was no problem over conversion.

Mr. Thorpe: May we know why only two British firms were asked to tender? Were those responsible unaware of the existence of others?

Mr. Dunn: They were not asked to tender in that way. The management made inquiries as to operative prices. These were tabulated and a cost analysis was undertaken and presented. I can give the figures if the right hon. Gentleman so requires. On the basis of the first assessment these figures would have meant, for Royal Tuscan Wedgwood, £14, 197 and for Rosenthal, £12, 579. Taking into account the discount systems which are operative, and applying the highest discount system, the Royal Tuscan figure came out at £12, 423 and the Rosenthal at £12, 201·63.

Dr. Glyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As this is a House of Commons matter would it be within your discretion to allow the Lord President to say something on the last part of my supplementary question?

Mr. Short: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman meant by his question, but if it will help the House I shall ensure that a report on this matter from the Services Committee is presented to the House.

ATTACK ON INFLATION

Mr. Costain: asked the Lord President of the Council what is the cost of the printing and distribution of the Government's publication concerning their inflation policy which has been distributed to all householders.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Privy Council Office (Mr. William Price): The total cost for printing and distributing the Counter-inflation booklet was about £850,000. Supplementary Estimates provision will be sought at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Costain: What justification can there be for this expenditure? Is the Minister aware of the public indignation at party propaganda being put across to the country at taxpayers' expense?

Mr. Price: I was under the impression that this policy had the broad support of the House, which is more than can be said for the Fair Rent Act, upon which the Conservative Government spent £852, 000 of public money on advertising—a figure which today would almost certainly be £1¼ million. I have looked very hard but I can find no evidence that the hon. Gentleman complained on that occasion.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE

Luton Airport

Mr. Madel: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what conclusions he has reached on the future development of Luton Airport following his recent visit there; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): No conclusions about the future development of Luton Airport will be taken in advance of the consultations with local authorities and other organisations which will follow the publication shortly of a consultation document on London airports.

Mr. Madel: May we take it from that answer that in spite of the Maplin decision the Government will refuse to finance development of a second runway at Luton? Does the Minister feel that there should be more restrictions, particularly at night, on movements at Luton Airport in the meantime?

Mr. Davis: Any question affecting the further development of Luton is a matter for the airport authority, and I discussed this when I visited Luton in September. The authority would be well advised to await the result of the consultations which will follow the publication of the consultative document very shortly. I am glad to say that noise has recently been a reducing factor. I think that the hon. Gentleman will bear that out.

Mr. Tebbit: When he is considering the future of the airport will the Minister remember, first, that it is a very important airport to many trade unionists who like to take their package holidays to Spain

from there and, secondly, that it is an important employer and an important industry to its owners, the local Corporation of Luton? The need is to encourage more traffic rather than to discriminate against it in any way.

Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman is inviting me to prejudge the consultations affecting Luton. Of course it is an important airport, but it would be wrong for me to make an advance announcement of the Government's thinking about it.
The hon. Gentleman's observations about package holidays to Spain are irrelevant to this issue, but I hope that fewer people will embark upon such holidays in future as a result of what has happened in that unfortunate country in the last few weeks.

Mr. Goodhew: Surely by talking about a falling off in the number of flights from Luton the Minister is merely taking advantage of the fact, or hiding behind the fact, of the Court Line collapse and the smaller number of flights from Luton as a result from that. What is he doing to prevent a further increase, in fact, a return to the very high rate of night flights, in particular from Luton, which affect a vast number of people, not merely in the area of Luton Corporation?

Mr. Davis: The situation affecting the development of the airport is not a matter I am seeking to hide behind. I agree with the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) that Luton is a very important airport. I have taken very much into account the fact that as a result of the Court Line collapse there has been a reduced use of Luton airport, but I am perfectly entitled to say that I believe that there has been a marked reduction in noise. However, that is insufficient for the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) who has constituency interests.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Henderson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Does the point of order arise out of Questions?

Mr. Henderson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. May I raise with you a point of order arising from Questions? The hon. Member for


West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) had two Questions down for today—Nos. 29 and 30—in which many of us were interested. Would you, Mr. Speaker, deem it appropriate to remind hon. Members who are members of the European Assembly as well that when they table Questions in this House they should be here to ask them?

Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to remind hon. Members of such matters. I may have quite a lot to remind them of, but it is not for me to do so.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): The House will wish to know that the business on Wednesday and Thursday has been re-arranged as follows:—
Wednesday, 15th October—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill.
Motion on the Incumbents (Vacation of Benefices) Measure.
Thursday, 16th October—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Sex Discrimination Bill.
Motions on the Price Code orders.

Mr. Wigley: Can the Leader of the House give an indication of when we shall have the re-scheduled debate on the Report stage of the Welsh Development Agency Bill and also when we may have the annual Welsh day, which we have not had for 18 months?

Mr. Short: Hon. Members will get those debates. All that I am concerned with in this statement is the business for Wednesday and Thursday.

Mr. Spearing: Before the recess my right hon. Friend said that the debates on the EEC motions this Friday would be on the Adjournment. In view of a statement by the Government about the powers of the House, has he reconsidered that statement about the EEC motions?

Mr. Short: No, I have not reconsidered that. All that I am concerned with in this short statement is the business for Wednesday and Thursday.

DIEGO GARCIA

Mr. Newens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter of some importance to the House. It is the question of the way in which successive Ministers in various Governments since 1965 have failed to make available for hon. Members information relating to an important international agreement on Diego Garcia.
Information which one would have thought would have been available in the House was recently made available to the Congress of the United States; namely, information relating to the military installations which were being built on the island of Diego Garcia and also information relating to depopulation on the island. Numerous Questions have been tabled on this issue over the years.
I wish to ask, first, whether Ministers have any obligation to bring matters of this sort before the House. Secondly, if as a result of Questions that information is not elicited, what ways exist of Members seeking to get it? It can be said that it is likely to bring the House into disrepute if information relating to a British territory is made available to members of Congress which is not made available in the House.
Therefore, I should like to ask you, first, Mr. Speaker, whether Ministers have any obligation to bring matters of this sort before the House; secondly, whether you will indicate to hon. Members the ways which are open to them to obtain information of this sort on international agreements; and, thirdly, whether you will indicate any way in which you feel it would be appropriate for hon. Members to pursue the information about Diego Garcia.

Mr. Speaker: The first part of the hon. Member's question seems to me to be very much like a business question as to how the Government intend to make certain information available. It is not a matter for the Chair, but the Lord President of the Council has heard the hon. Member's point of order and no doubt will pay due regard to it.
My advice upon the other matter will rather depend on how the Government make the information available. if they make it available. Therefore, at this


stage, the matter is for me hypothetical. When it becomes more definite I will give the hon. Gentleman such guidance as I can.

Later—

Mr. Frank Allaun: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise another point of order on the issue to which my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) referred, which is one of great importance because it could be a matter of peace or war. You said to my hon. Friend that it was not a question for you to decide and indicated that it was either a business question or a question for the Minister. I have secured from the House of Commons Library a complete record of every reference by Ministers in both Governments to this issue, and it is quite clear that we have been misled. You suggested, Mr. Speaker, that it was a question for the Minister to answer. May I therefore, through you, ask the Leader of the House whether he will indicate that there will be a statement on this issue this week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): I have listened very carefully to what both of my hon. Friends have said. I will certainly convey their remarks to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and discuss the matter with him. Perhaps I should mention that this matter could be raised again on Thursday in business questions.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

Mr. Penhaligon: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration; namely,
the deterioration of the National Health Service on several fronts.
Doctors are on strike in Plymouth, and there are serious threats that this will extend to Sheffield, Leicester, Scunthorpe and Norwich. I am concerned that the assurances given by the doctors at Plymouth are still not sufficient, and the House should be concerned about whether people's lives are in danger.
On another front doctors are voting with their feet and are moving to pastures new. This is not due simply to the

pay bed dispute, because many of these doctors are in specialties which have no private practice considerations.
Many hon. Members will agree that one of the prime functions of the House is to guard the health of the people. I therefore believe that it is essential that time should be found for us to debate a way of stopping this situation in Plymouth spreading to some of the other places which I have mentioned.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member gave me notice of his intention to raise this matter. He raises a very serious matter, and those in charge of the business of the House will no doubt pay attention to what he said. The question for me is simply whether I should allow a debate to be held today or tomorrow. In view of the business before the House, the answer must be "No".

Later—

Mr. Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Reverting to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Truro, (Mr. Penhaligon), will you clarify your ruling? You said that, because of the nature of the business before the House today and tomorrow, it was not possible for you to rule that the matter the hon. Gentleman raised should be given precedence, although you said—I think that the whole House would agree—that the matter is one of great importance to the country as a whole. Can you tell us what there is about the business before the House today and tomorrow which is so important that it must have such priority?

Mr. Speaker: No. Under the Standing Order I am not allowed to give my reasons. The decision always is whether I shall disrupt the business of the day or the following day. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman will get no more change out of me on that matter.

RT. HON. MEMBER FOR WALSALL, NORTH

Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for not having given you prior notice. My point of order concerns developments over recent hours relating to the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse). [Hon. Members: "Right honourable Member."]
If Press indications are true that the Member has requested permission


to make a statement to the House, may I take it that in considering that application you will, in view of the controversy and the fact that such a statement would be not universally welcomed by the House, afford the House an opportunity on a Division to give approval or otherwise for the Member to make a statement? Secondly, as we were urged not to consider a motion to expel the said Member because it might influence court proceedings, will you, if you give per mission for a statement to be made, impose limitation on the substance of such a statement—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot allow this. The question whether to allow a personal statement to be made is a matter for me. If I allow it to be made, I shall have to approve the personal statement. I am not prepared to accept advice on a hypothetical situation at the moment.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Rooker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege on which I should like to seek your guidance. There appeared in the Economist of 11th October a most detailed article about a draft Report of a Select Committee of this House which, in fact, does not meet until Wednesday of this week. The report in the Economist gives in detail the amount of money which it is proposed to raise by means of the wealth tax. Full details are given. No member of the Select Committee has seen the draft Report. No hon. Member has seen the draft Report.
In the past the editor of the Economist has not been slow in coming forward to give advice to Members of this House. There have been complaints from time to time about Governments making statements outside the House instead of in the House. Hon. Members certainly have a right to be the first to be informed of the contents of Select Committee Reports. I should like you to consider this article, Mr. Speaker, and to give a ruling.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member is relying upon the article, will he bring the publication to the Table?

Copy of publication handed in.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member. I shall consider the matter and will rule tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — COMMUNITY LAND BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Community Land Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, new Clauses; Amendments relating to Clauses 1 to 9; Schedule 1; Clause 10; Schedule 2; Clauses 11 to 17; Schedule 3; Clause 18; Schedule 4; Clause 19; Schedule 5; Clauses 20 and 21; Schedule 6; Clauses 22 to 25; Schedule 7; Clauses 26 to 49; Schedule 8; Clauses 50 to 58; Schedules 9 and 10; and new Schedules.—[Mr. John Silkin.]

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Rossi: On this motion, without wishing to detain the House unduly—because we have a great deal of business to get through—may I register a strong protest at the way in which the House has been treated by the Government in the manner in which they have arranged their business concerning this Bill.
We completed the Committee stage on 15th July. Between 15th July and the date on which we rose for the Summer Recess 257 amendments and new Clauses were put down on the Notice Paper. Those of us who are concerned with this matter spent as much of the recess as we could studying those amendments, which relate to a matter which is highly complicated and technical.
Ten days ago the Minister in charge of the Bill made announcements relating to various other amendments which he proposed to table for our consideration. In fact, 90 new Government amendments have been tabled and 25 of those which were on the Paper when we rose for the recess have been withdrawn.
The Minister has been kind to this extent: he gave us the opportunity during the weekend of studying notes which he had prepared on the meaning of those amendments. But the time was far too short to enable us to consider matters of this nature which, as I said, are highly technical and complex.
It is quite wrong that the House should have to deal with a Bill of this kind on the very first day after the recess. The Opposition have not been given the full opportunity which they need to consider,


examine and probe and to ask the Government to state their intentions concerning these amendments, and whether they carry out undertakings which were given to us in Committee about new proposals which were to be brought forward.
It has been impossible for us to discharge our duty properly. Therefore, we must apologise to the country at large if during today and tomorrow we do not bring to light all the matters that should be brought to light. Ultimately those who will suffer—because we in this House are accustomed to putting up with a certain amount of inconvenience and late hours—are the people of this country who will have to live under this ill-considered and ill-judged legislation.

The Minister for Planning and Local Government (Mr, John Silkin): It would be hypocritical of me not to agree that all Oppositions feel that they have not had enough time in which to study amendments. I have often raised points of order on this sort of matter. I remember that when the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) gave us 630 amendments one hour before we were due to consider them, some of my hon. Friends got very hot under the collar.

Mr. Graham Page: Could the right hon. Gentleman say when that was? One hour before they were considered, indeed! They were on the Order Paper for months.

Mr. Silkin: The right hon. Gentleman has forgotten. It was one day in July—I cannot remember which day, but he can look it up. It was probably 17th July 1972—I would not swear to the date—when 630 Lords amendments were brought to this House. We were shown them one hour before, and many of them had great substance in them.
I am commiserating with the right hon. Gentleman. He should not try to prevent my commiserating with him. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes), remembers that during consideration of the Water Resources Bill in the last Government, and in the Local Government Bill of 1974, complaints were made about the lateness of amendments.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gordon Oakes): The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gordon Oakes) indicated assent.

Mr. Silkin: Having said that, may I explain the situation concerning this group of amendments?
It is quite true, as the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) said, that 90 amendments were put down by the Government 10 days ago, but half of those are minor drafting amendments or amendments dealing with very small issues which meet the Opposition case. In addition to that, 15 amendments deal with charities, blight and the penalty in Clause 24. The point about all these is that I think by general agreement the Report and Third Reading stages of this Bill were postponed from before the recess until after the recess. As a result, these amendments, which would have been dealt with in another place, have been brought to this House, and I should have thought that this House would welcome that fact rather than have those amendments go to another place.
There are 19 amendments on exceptcd development—certainly a major change, but we did our best to help the Opposition by giving advance notice of our amendments in the September document—and, finally, there are the accounts amendments, of which there are 10. They are all part of the mechanics and designed to fit the legislative provisions to the accounts which we now think we need.
The hon. Member for Hornsey underestimates himself and his colleagues. If they want to make a complaint, it should be directed at the fact that on Friday the Opposition tabled 20 amendments. Those amendments have nothing to do with late Government amendments but could have been tabled last July. There are amendments to leave out Clauses 13, 27, 28, 42, 44 and 52. Therefore, if the complaint is that the Government's amendments are late, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has a strong complaint against his hon. Friends.

Mr. Rossi: The right hon. Gentleman knowns very well that in normal circumstances the Opposition wait for the Government to table their amendments on Report to see the extent to which they carry out the undertakings given in Committee. It is only at that point that


the Opposition can deal with Government amendments. We did the best we could in July and tabled amendments then. It was only when we were in Blackpool that the Government started messing around and sought to deal with matters at this stage.

Mr. John Silkin: The hon. Gentleman knows his own business better than I, but the fact remains that the examples I have quoted were related to the Bill as proposed to be amended—namely, the 160 or so amendments tabled last July. They have nothing whatever to do with the Government amendments tabled 10 days ago.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I do not know this Bill very well since I was not on the Committee but, having listened to the exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) and the Minister, I am appalled at the cavalier way in which the Government are treating legislation.
Those of us who have been in our constituencies in the recess will know of the growing mood among those who have to administer the spate of Acts of Parliament produced by the present Government. The complications and intricacies are causing near to a refusal to operate Bills churned out by this House. The Government by pushing out a Bill of this sort, in face of the mounting opposition throughout the country, take no account of the extraordinarily ill-prepared nature of the legislation in the first place.
I understand that 250 amendments were tabled in July and another 90 during the recess. Why was it necessary to table so many amendments in the first place? Why were so many points conceded to my hon. Friend if the Bill was properly thought out in the first place? Why were there so many drafting points to be made? Why were there so many points of substance?
The Government must realise that those who have to administer this legislation cannot take this barrage of complicated clauses, which are far-reaching, penal and thoroughly tiresome in effect. If the Government wish to legislate on this subject, they should first consult all those who will have to administer legislation. They should also consult the Opposition, because that Opposition will repeal the

Bill anyway. We shall then try to find a solution to the problem of land that will be acceptable, not just to the narrow interests of the Labour Party but to my hon. Friends, the local authorities, the surveyors, the accountants and all those who will be concerned in administering land use both now and in the future.
If the Government believe that the way in which they should govern is to produce all these doctrinaire and extravagant measures which matter to nobody but themselves and which relate only to their wretched manifesto, they should think again. When will they get to the end of their desperate manifesto? It is a document that is hated throughout the country and it is now groaning its weary way through Parliament. There is not a citizen who would not be delighted if the Government were to abandon the manifesto, which is proving the most tedious obligation which any Government have had to face.
There is, however, a lesson to be learned. We should not legislate by producing a Bill which is so riddled with faults that right and proper complaints have to be made at this stage, and a Bill which has incurred 300 Government amendments. Even after those amendments are included in the Bill, the local authorities believe that the measure is practically unworkable. The Opposition cannot possibly tolerate such a Bill becoming a permanent feature of the statute book. It is a Bill which will eventually be torn up. Today's happenings amount to irresponsible political action of the kind which brings the House into disrepute. It will force my hon. Friends to do something about the situation at a stage in the future. It is a total waste of parliamentary time and of the authority of Parliament if we seek to push through such an ill-thought-out and half-baked measure.

Mr. Walter Clegg: I support what has been said by my hon. Friends. The Bill in form has been condemned by a Committee of Justice as being unconstitutional. Certainly in form we agree that it is intolerable.
As a member of the Standing Committee, I received certain papers in explanation of the amendments. I wish to ask whether other hon. Members who were not members of the Committee also


received those papers. If they have not those documents before them, I believe that they will find the amendments incomprehensible.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Did my hon. Friend receive those papers while he was a member of the Standing Committee, or after it had ceased sitting? Therefore, is he in the same position as other hon. Members who were not members of the Committee?

Mr. Clegg: I received the papers after the Committee had finished its sittings, and indeed in the last few days. I understand that some of this material has been published in the Press. I believe that it is wrong for the House to consider the Bill until every Member has been given the explanatory documents. It is disgraceful that we should have to consider this Bill in such a way because this may well set a precedent for the future.
The Minister claimed that many of the amendments will improve the Bill and make it more to our liking. Its cosmetic effect is as effective as putting face powder on a pox-ridden harlot.

Mr. John Peyton: The Minister can hardly expect the House to have been very pleased with his reply. The House does not have to be back for very long before the Government begin once again to indulge in the rather bad habits which they developed last July.
Our serious complaint on this occasion is that we are now facing an immensely technical and complex measure on a subject with which, admittedly, no Government have dealt successfully since the war. The measure before us has now been so tremendously amended that it is difficult to assess the effect of each individual amendment, and indeed it is almost impossible to assess the effect upon the fabric of the Bill as a whole.
It would appear that the Government's approach to many of the defects in the Bill—defects which they admit—is based on the attitude that, having got rid of the tiresome ordeal of parliamentary examination, they will deal with the matter by regulation. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is asking for power to undertake various matters by regulation.

If the Minister wishes to intervene at this point, I shall gladly give way.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. John Silkin: If the right hon. Gentleman cares to remain during the debate on new Clause 2, he may find the position, which is not as he says it is, very clearly set out.

Mr. Peyton: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is doing himself justice or treating the House fairly. He should explain the number of instances in which he is now asking to be given powers in order to correct defects which are admittedly in the Bill. That is our understanding, although it is true that we have not had long to consider the matter.

Mr. John Silkin: I do not think that starting to debate new Clause 2 and the Government amendments associated with it on this motion would, Mr. Speaker, if I read your mind correctly, be in order. In any event, it would seem to me an illogical way to proceed.

Mr. Peyton: I am interested in what the right hon. Gentleman says. I take it that he is now saying that the new powers to amend the Bill afterwards which he now requires from the House arise out of new Clause 2. Is that correct? That is what he is saying as I understand it. He is saying that he does not want now to debate new Clause 2.
The right hon. Gentleman can hardly blame the Opposition if our understanding of this immensely complicated cobweb of a measure is slightly deficient. He has not given the House a chance and, by his present demeanour, apparently does not show any of the understanding of Parliament's difficulties which might be expected of a Minister who normally behaves with reasonable courtesy.
From our point of view, the right hon. Gentleman's cavalier treatment of Parliament, to use the description given by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), is a very bad example, and it comes at a time when all too many people take every opportunity lightly to deride and mock Parliament. It would be a pity if the Government then set a bad example and continuously revealed their own contempt for Parliament by this slipshod and sloppy


behaviour. I think that my right hon. and hon. Friends would wish to mark their disapproval by dividing against the motion.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: An aspect has just emerged which I find profoundly disturbing. Apparently, the Government have issued to some hon. Members but not to others explanatory memoranda on the amendments. I have just made an inquiry, and these explanatory memoranda, I find, have not been supplied to members of a Standing Committee while that Committee was functioning; the Government have chosen to supply them to certain hon. Members who sat on a Standing Committee which once existed but does not exist now. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the same explanatory memoranda, which have been sent unsolicited to certain hon. Members but not to others, are made available in the Vote Office for any other Members of the House before the proceedings to which this motion refers take place?

Mr. John Silkin: Perhaps I can make a correction. The hon. Gentleman has used the word "unsolicited". When the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) saw me last week, before he went to a northern watering place, he asked me, as he well knows, if I would supply these notes on amendments. I was reluctant to do so, as the hon. Member for Hornsey also well knows, but he pressed me and I agreed. If this is the way the Opposition intend to use this concession, I shall strongly advise my right hon. Friends never to give in again.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The sort of list we have for the continuation of the Bill—completely covering two sides of a foolscap sheet—is such that unless explanatory memoranda are available to hon. Members the House will be in chaos. To expect the House to wade through the list of amendments and new clauses selected by the Chair without explanatory memoranda from the Government is to treat it with complete contempt. We should bear in mind the short time since many of these amendments and new clauses were tabled, and that to be meaningful they have to be fitted in, read into the Bill, to see what they mean. That

is the whole purpose of explanatory memoranda. When a Bill is first printed, after First Reading and before Second Reading the House gets an explanatory memorandum so that, when it comes to debate the measure on Second Reading, it is aware of the purposes of the clauses.
In this case, we have two sides of foolscap paper containing nothing but the numbers of the amendments selected, and surely the right hon. Gentleman cannot imagine that in two days the House can do justice to all these amendments without explanatory memoranda. The only alternative is for the right hon. Gentleman to give a lengthy explanation of each and every amendment and new clause and not to move any of them formally. But surely it would save him a lot of time if he made explanatory memoranda more generally available, because in that way, among other things, some amendments could be taken formally and those interested in them could read the explanation.
Surely that is the proper way to get complicated legislation dealt with on the Floor of the House. This is a serious point. If hon. Members who are specifically interested in certain parts of the Bill but do not have the same degree of interest in other parts are to find their way through what is by any standard an absolute nightmare of amendments and new clauses, they must have explanatory memoranda.

Sir Raymond Gower: I am sorry that the Minister reacted so sharply when my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) made his observations. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to think that he was doing a favour to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), but material of this kind is not for the edification of a few but should be available to all hon. Members on both sides of the House in order that there can be intelligent debate. Surely it would be best now for the House to adjourn to enable the Minister to arrange for the distribution of this material and for us to have just a little time to look at it.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 170.

Division No. 329.]
AYES
[4.10 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Forrester, John
Millan, Bruce


Allaun, Frank
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Anderson, Donald
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)


Archer, Peter
Freeson, Reginald
Molloy, William


Armstrong, Ernest
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Moonman, Eric


Ashley, Jack
George, Bruce
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Ginsburg, David
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Atkinson, Norman
Gould, Bryan
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Bates, Alf
Gourlay, Harry
Moyle, Roland


Bean, R. E.
Graham, Ted
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Newens, Stanley


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Noble, Mike


Bidwell, Sydney
Grocott, Bruce
Oakes, Gordon


Bishop, E. S.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Ogden, Eric


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hardy, Peter
O'Halloran, Michael


Boardman, H.
Harper, Joseph
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian


Booth, Albert
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orbach, Maurice


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Ovenden, John


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Hatton, Frank
Owen, Dr David


Bradley, Tom
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Padley, Walter


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Palmer, Arthur


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Heffer, Eric S.
Park, George


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Hooley, Frank
Parker, John


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Horam, John
Parry, Robert


Buchan, Norman
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Pavitt, Laurie


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Pendry, Tom


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Perry, Ernest


Campbell, Ian
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Phipps, Dr Colin


Canavan, Dennis
Hunter, Adam
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Cant, R. B.
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Price, William (Rugby)


Carmichael, Neil
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Radice, Giles


Carter, Ray
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Janner, Greville
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cartwright, John
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Clemitson, Ivor
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
John, Brynmor
Rooker, J. W.


Cohen, Stanley
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Roper, John


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Rose, Paul B.


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rowlands, Ted


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sedgemore, Brian


Corbett, Robin
Judd, Frank
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Kaufman, Gerald
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Kelley, Richard
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Crawshaw, Richard
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Kinnock, Neil
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Cryer, Bob
Lambie, David
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Lamborn, Harry
Sillars, James


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Lamond, James
Silverman, Julius


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Skinner, Dennis


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Small, William


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Deakins, Eric
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Snape, Peter


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lipton, Marcus
Spearing, Nigel


Delargy, Hugh
Litterick, Tom
Spriggs, Leslie


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Lomas, Kenneth
Stallard, A. W.


Doig, Peter
Loyden, Eddie
Stoddart, David


Dormand, J. D.
Luard, Evan
Stonehouse, Rt Hon John


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Stott, Roger


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Strang, Gavin


Dunn, James A.
McCartney, Hugh
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Dunnett, Jack
McElhone, Frank
Swain, Thomas


Eadie, Alex
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Edelman, Maurice
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Edge, Geoff
Mackenzie, Gregor
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Mackintosh, John P.
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Maclennan, Robert
Tierney, Sydney


English, Michael
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Tinn, James


Ennals, David
McNamara, Kevin
Tomlinson, John


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Magee, Bryan
Torney, Tom


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Urwin, T. W.


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Marks, Kenneth
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Marquand, David
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Flannery, Martin
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Ward, Michael


Fletcher, Ted (Darlingon)
Meacher, Michael
Watkins, David


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Watkinson, John


Ford, Ben
Mikardo, Ian
Weetch, Ken




Weitzman, David
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Wellbeloved, James
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
young, David (Bolton E)


White, Frank R. (Bury)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)



White, James (Pollok)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Whitehead, Phillip
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Whitlock, William
Wise, Mrs Audrey
Miss Margaret Jackson.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Nott, John


Alison, Michael
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Onslow, Cranley


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Hawkins, Paul
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Banks, Robert
Hayhoe, Barney
Page, John (Harrow West)


Beith, A. J.
Henderson, Douglas
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Bell, Ronald
Heseltine, Michael
Pardoe, John


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Higgins, Terence L.
Penhaligon, David


Benyon, W.
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Howell, David (Guildford)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Biffen, John
Hurd, Douglas
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Biggs-Davison, John
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Raison, Timothy


Blaker, Peter
Jessel, Toby
Rathbone, Tim


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ridsdale, Julian


Braine, Sir Bernard
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Brittan, Leon
Knight, Mrs Jill
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Brotherton, Michael
Knox, David
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Lamont, Norman
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Lane, David
Sainsbury, Tim


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Scott, Nicholas


Budgen, Nick
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Bulmer, Esmond
Lawrence, Ivan
Shersby, Michael


Carr, Rt Hon Robert
Lawson, Nigel
Sims, Roger


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Clegg, Walter
Lloyd, Ian
Sproat, Iain


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Loveridge, John
Stainton, Keith


Cope, John
Luce, Richard
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Costain, A. P.
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Crawford, Douglas
McCrindle, Robert
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Critchley, Julian
Macfarlane, Neil
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Crouch, David
MacGregor, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Madel, David
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Durant, Tony
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Tebbit, Norman


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Marten, Neil
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Eyre, Reginald
Mates, Michael
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Fairgrieve. Russell
Maude, Angus
Townsend, Cyril D.


Fell, Anthony
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Tugendhat, Christopher


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Mawby, Ray
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wakeham, John


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mayhew, Patrick
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Wall, Patrick


Fox Marcus
Mills, Peter
Warren, Kenneth


Freud, Clement
Moate, Roger
Weatherill, Bernard


Fry, Peter
Molyneaux, James
Wells, John


Gardner, Edward (S Fyide)
Montgomery, Fergus
Welsh, Andrew


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Glyn, Dr Alan
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wiggin, Jerry


Goodhew, Victor
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Wigley, Dafydd


Goodlad, Alastair
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Winterton, Nicholas


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Gray, Hamish
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)



Grylls, Michael
Mudd, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Hall, Sir John
Neave, Airey
Mr. Cecil Parkinson and


Hannam, John
Nelson, Anthony
Mr. Michael Roberts.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Community Land Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, new Clauses; Amendments relating to Clauses 1 to 9; Schedule 1; Clause 10; Schedule 2; Clauses 11 to 17; Schedule 3; Clause 18; Schedule 4; Clause 19; Schedule 5; Clauses 20 and 21; Schedule 6; Clauses 22 to 25; Schedule 7; Clauses 26 to 49; Schedule 8; Clauses 50 to 58: Schedules 9 and 10; and new Schedules.

New Clause 1

SPECIAL PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO LAND HELD BY OR IN TRUST FOR PUBLIC CHARITY

(1) This section applies to any land an interest in which is held by or in trust for a charity.
(2) For the purposes of this Act a material interest in land is not outstanding if it is held by or in trust for a charity.


(3) Subsection (3) to (6) of section 27 of this Act shall not apply in any case in which that section applies if the land in question is land to which this section applies.
(4) The compensation payable in any case in which the said section 27 applies shall, if the land in question is land to which this section applies, be assessed—

(a) as if this Act had not been passed, or
(b) if the person entitled to the compensation so elects, as if planning permission had been granted for any development by virtue of which the use of that land would be made to correspond with the use which prevails generally in the case of contiguous or adjacent land.'—[Mr. Rossi.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Rossi: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following new clause and amendments:
New Clause No. 6—Special provisions with respect to land held by or in trust for an approved pension scheme—

(1) This section applies to any land an interest in which is held by or in trust for an approved pension scheme.
(2) For the purposes of this Act a material interest in land is not outstanding if it is held by or in trust for an approved pension scheme.
(3) Subsections (3) to (6) of section 27 of this Act shall not apply in any case in which that section applies if the land in question is land to which this section applies.
(4) The compensation payable in any case in which the said section 27 applies shall, if the land in question is land to which this section applies, be assessed—

(a) as if this Act had not been passed, or
(b) if the person entitled to the compensation so elects, as if planning permission had been granted for any development by virtue of which the use of that land would be made to correspond with the use which prevails generally in the case of contiguous or adjacent land.

(5) In this section "approved pension scheme" means a retirement pension scheme approved by the Commissioner for Inland Revenue under section 222 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 or a superannuation fund approved by the Commissioners for Inland Revenue for the purposes of section 208 of the Finance and Corporation Taxes Act 1970.

Government Amendments Nos. 270, 273, 129, 316, 317, 318 and 344.

Mr. Rossi: New Clause 1 relates to charities while New Clause 6 deals with pension funds. The amendments which we are to take with these are Government amendments which in part seem

to seek to meet some of the objections that we raised to the Bill, namely that it fails to give any exemption to charities or Churches. The amendments appear to do nothing to deal with pension funds.
I will deal first with new Clause 1. Charities have had a somewhat chequered career under this Bill. It was clear from the White Paper and the Bill as originally presented on Second Reading that the Government had no intention whatever of giving any exemptions to Churches or charities in so far as their land was concerned. There was nothing of any kind and the Bill emerged in this House on 29th April—

Mr. John Silkin: The hon. Member will, I hope, remember what my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales said on Second Reading. He said quite clearly that this point needed some consideration and discussion.

Mr. Rossi: I know very well what the right hon. and learned Member said on Second Reading. But I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman heard what I was saying before his intervention. I was saying that it was clear that it was the Government's original intention, both in the White Paper and the Bill, not to give any exemption to charities. It was only after the Prime Minister had received a deputation from Church leaders a week or so before Second Reading that there was a sudden realisation on the part of the Government that they would be in considerable trouble if they did not do something about charities and Churches.
When we pressed the matter on Second Reading we received the assurance from the Secretary of State for Wales that the matter would receive further consideration. What further consideration did it receive? When we arrived in Committee there were amendments seeking to assist charities and Churches tabled by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. The amendments tabled by Government back benchers sought only to exempt Churches. We felt that that was not sufficient and sought to exempt Churches and all charities.
Even when we debated this matter in Committee early in June, the Minister was not ready. He did not know how far he could go, and we had the rather curious


spectacle of some statements being made in Committee which were interpreted in a certain way by those listening in the Committee, reported in the Press and then denied the next day by the Department of the Environment. It was not until 15th July, by which date we had been told we would receive Government amendments, that we received not the amendments but a further statement by the Minister giving an indication of his intention to assist charities.
On that occasion the Minister spoke in some specific terms. But it is not until this late hour that we finally see what the amendments are. We have already had a debate on this matter, so I will not reopen the argument about the late-ness of the amendments. Even the amendments dealing with charities do not appear to be complete, because in Committee the Minister said there would be a concession for charities regarding the prevailing use value basis of compensation, about which we shall talk later. There is no amendment dealing with that. I assume that we shall have to wait until the Bill is in another place before there are amendments tabled to help charities on that score.
I have given this brief introduction to show the shambles the Government have been in on this question of charities and the patchwork way in which they have dealt with the matter and the uncertain direction in which they have moved. Even at this stage we must criticise the Government for not doing enough for charities and Churches, as we shall see when we look at the amendments.
I deal first with the intent behind new Clause 1. The intention is to give universal help to Churches and charities against some of the worst features of this legislation. We start by saying in sub-section (1) that
This section applies to any land an interest in which is held by or in trust for a charity.
That will include Church land, too. We say in subsection (2) that
For the purposes of this Act a material interest in land is not outstanding if it is held by or in trust for a charity.
"Outstanding material interest in land" is one of those curious terms of art introduced into the Bill which at first sight are unintelligible to the layman. What we are seeking to say by adopting that

phraseology, which follows the definition in the Bill, is that for the purposes of the measure, land belonging to charity shall not be subject to the duty as to acquisition imposed upon local authorities by virtue of Clause 20. Therefore charities will be able to go about the development of their land without attracting the acquisitive duties of local authorities to take up that land the moment a charity seeks to carry out a development or even to apply for planning permission.
In subsection (3) we seek to exclude those parts of Clause 27 which deal with the payment in respect of land which is acquired by local authorities under this measure. Clause 27 deals with the compensation to be paid at current use value. We are saying that the current use value concept shall not apply to land owned by charity and acquired by local authorities.
The reason is simple. Most Churches today are having to give up redundant churches in inner city areas and make them available for development purposes. With the money received from that development or sale of land, they build new churches in the areas to which the population has shifted. It is essential to them in carrying out that new building that they should receive a full and proper market price for the redundant church and not merely a current use value, which would be the price that would be put on a redundant church used as a redundant church—an empty church building which has a minimal value, if any.
What we seek to say is that the Churches should get more than the current use value. They should get what the land is worth in the inner city so that they can go about their work of developing churches or carrying out other charitable works in other parts of the country.
Subsection (4) of the new clause seeks to say that the compensation shall be assessed
(a) as if this Act had not been passed, or (b) if the person entitled to the compensation so elects, as if planning permission had been granted for any development by virtue of which the use of that land would be made to correspond with the use which prevails generally in the case of contiguous or adjacent land.
That is the prevailing use concept to which I referred a few moments ago,


about which we received an undertaking in Committee and concerning which there is as yet no amendment before us.
The concept is simply that where the Church wishes to sell its redundant building it will not be paid by the local authority, on acquisition, the value of a redundant church as such but will be entitled to say, "What is the prevailing use of land in this neighbourhood? Is it industrial or is it commercial?" Let us assume that our redundant church has planning permission to be developed in the way in which land in that area is being generally used. The price payable for the land by the local authority would be that prevailing use value—in other words, a value based upon the purpose for which the local authority will ultimately develop the land. By that we can be assured in this situation that the Churches and charities will be able to go about their business.
4.30 p.m.
In seeking to meet some of the objections that we raised in Committee the Minister has tabled his Amendments Nos. 270 to 344 as they appear on the Notice Paper, but he goes only a very little part of the way towards meeting our objections. I suggest to him that this so-called concession is of little use to Churches and charities.
First, the amendments give exemptions to charities from the effects of the legislation for a period of only 10 years. When we debated this matter in Committee the Minister informed us that he considered that the 10-year period would be sufficient to enable charities to arrange their affairs in respect of the land they now own. In fact, the charities and Churches consider that that 10-year period is far too short for their purposes. They urge upon us that even in normal circumstances it can take 10 years or more to devise a scheme, get it approved, arrange the necessary finance and obtain planning permission. However, in the present circumstances and the current economic climate building programmes of all kinds are having to be postponed. This is particularly true in respect of institutions and homes. Therefore, for them this 10-year concession is unrealistic.
The second reason why these proposed amendments or suggested concessions by

the Minister fail to help the charities is that a rigid distinction is drawn by the amendments between pre- and post-White Paper day land. In other words, the concession that I have indicated applies only to land which happened to be owned by Churches and charities on 12th September 1974. The concessions do not apply in any way to land which they acquired subsequent to 12th September 1974. The activities of Churches and charities are fossilised if they are to be tied down to their existing land banks.
A great deal of Church and charity activity is in exchanging land that they do not need for the time being for other land that they will require for future use. Under a strict interpretation of the amendments as tabled by the Minister they will not be able to carry on that kind of activity and, therefore, will be considerably impeded in the work in which they are engaged.
One of the complaints made to us by the charities is that they are being treated far worse than statutory undertakers, who are being allowed to develop land for their own purposes irrespective of when land was acquired. The charities believe that at least they should be treated on a par with statutory undertakers, because they consider that their land is being used for the benefit of the community as a whole. Therefore, I ask the Minister to bear in mind and to consider sympathetic-ally the strong objections that the Churches and charities have raised with us, and, I have no doubt, have raised with him, as to the inadequacy of the concessions he has made.
I turn to the 10-year limitation. After a period of 10 years Church and charity land will be acquirable by local authorities at current use value. Churches wish to borrow today on the value of their land as a security, to enable them to carry out their work of building new churches, old people's homes, new Church schools and all those kinds of things by which they make such a great contribution to our community as a whole. If the value of their land takes a substantial nose-dive in 10 years' time, the borrowing they can achieve today on that land is extremely limited. Therefore, again the so-called concession by the Minister is of little help to Churches and charities in that area.
We are discussing also new Clause 6 which deals in similar language with an


entirely different situation. New Clause 6 proposes
Special provisions with respect to land held by or in trust for an approved pension scheme.
The wording of new Clause 6 follows closely the wording of new Clause 1 and, therefore, there is no need for me to go through the subsections seriatim, as I did before, to explain their intention and meaning. I need deal only with the general principle underlying the matter.
We discussed this subject at some length in Committee and, therefore, I shall not go over the ground today. I shall simply read into the record, as it were, the debate that took place in Standing Committee G, Sixth Sitting on Tuesday 10th June 1975, where those outside the House who are interested in these matters will find the facts and details examined in some depth. Suffice it to say, for the purposes of this discussion, that pension funds are dependent on being able to provide buoyant pensions for their pensioners—that is, pensions that keep pace with inflation—and on being able to redevelop their commercial and industrial holdings.
We are told and advised by pension fund managers that when a pension fund buys investment land today it does so on the basis of looking ahead some 150 years. Within that period it seeks to redevelop or rebuild a commercial or industrial building, such as an office block or a factory, twice or perhaps three times. On each occasion not only does it modernise the building but it may increase the floor space, or even alter the type of accommodation or mix up the development, to ensure that it gets the best return for its investment that the market will pay.
If a pension fund wishing to carry out that kind of redevelopment for the benefit of its pensioners has to work within the context of the Bill, it will lose severely and will not be able to maintain its pensions.
The concession announced two or three days ago by the Minister, that 15,000 sq.ft. of commercial or industrial building extensions will be exempted by some regulations he is to introduce in the future but not spelt out in the Bill, does not help the pensions funds. We have been into this matter with them and they say that that is far too restrictive and the Bill will impede them in their

work if they are not given exemptions of the kind that are enunciated in new Clause 6.
In order to assess the size of the problem, I will remind the House of one or two figures which have already been given. These are from published figures. A quarter of a million former miners are today living on pensions. Of their pension fund, £45 million is invested in commercial and industrial buildings—a total of 30 per cent. of the entire capital of the pension fund. In Standing Committee G at column 278 similar figures are given for the electrical workers, and local authority pensioners are affected in much the same way.
The effect of the Bill as it stands is that the moment a pension fund seeks to carry out a redevelopment to increase its income base, to increase the value of its land or the rents coming in to maintain its pension level with inflation, and applies for planning permission, it will be obliged, if the local authority so requires, to sell that land to the authority at current use value after the second appointed day. Then, if the local authority in its magnanimity chooses to allow the pension fund to carry out the development itself and not have it carried out by the local authority, the authority will not even sell back the land to the pension fund; it will lease it on a short lease on the best market terms available for the local authority after the development has been carried out. The difference between those two values is, in effect, a sizeable tax imposed upon the pension fund. Pension funds regard the operation of the Bill as the imposition of a heavy tax on pension funding which up to now has always been exempted from fiscal legislation.
It is for that reason that we seek to move new Clause 6, in respect of which there is not one concession in the Bill despite the real anxiety that has been expressed by the managers of pension funds throughout the country. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will support me when we seek to press new Clauses 1 and 6 in the Division Lobby.

Mr. John Silkin: It may help the House if I intervene at this early point in the debate, although my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will hope to deal with the main threads of the discussion later.
A number of matters have been put together in the Government's group of amendments. Hon. Members may find it useful if I indicate how they relate and in particular what the amendments seek to do.
The bulk of the provisions in the group is concerned with a special provision relating to charities. This is the theme of new Clause 1, which has been moved by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi).
Part of Government Amendment No. 270, the whole of Amendment No. 344 and Amendment No. 273 introduce a definition of "charity" for the purpose of the Bill. The other Government amendments are formal. Amendment No. 129 is consequential on Amendment No. 270 through the transfer of the list of bodies whose interests in land are not to be treated as outstanding material interests from Clause 20 to Clause 6. Amendments Nos. 316, 317 and 318 are drafting amendments in Clause 27 designed to accommodate the substantive Amendment No. 344.
As I understand it, new Clause 6, which relates to pension funds, has been included more because it has identical wording with new Clause 1 than for any new points which were to be raised. As the hon. Member for Hornsey fairly said, we debated this matter at some length in Committee. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be prepared to come back to the point again and to reiterate what was so eloquently expressed in Committee.
4.45 p.m.
I should like to turn to the content of the substantive Government amendments concerned with charities, which is paragraph (a) of new subsection (2B) in Amendments Nos. 270 and 344. These amendments give effect to two of the three areas for which I announced in Committee that special provision for charities would be made in the Bill.
Hon. Members may have noticed that in another place on 4th August my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State announced that amendments for the purpose would be available before the Bill reached its Committee stage in another place. I emphasise this, because I want the House to realise that there was never

any promise that the question of charities would be dealt with on Report. It is only because Report follows the recess that we are able to begin the series of amendments here. As I said, my noble Friend clearly said that the amendments would be dealt with in another place. However, we have done better than that. The amendments that I have mentioned cover most of the provisions promised in response to the "McNamara clause".
The one area of importance which will be provided for in another place concerns the circumstances which the hon. Member for Hornsey raised in which the prevailing use value basis will apply when charity-land is acquired for development. There are still some technical problems to be solved in giving expression to the provisions required. Negotiations with the bodies representing the Churches and other charities have been continuing and I hope to complete these discussions before the Bill is debated in another place where the final additions for charities will be made.
Amendment No. 270 concerns more than charity matters, and I shall come to the rest in a moment. The charity provision appears in the new subsection (2B)(a) and gives effect to my announcement in Committee that Churches and other charities will be able to carry out development on land owned by them on White Paper day without local authority intervention. In other and more technical words, a material interest if held in these circumstances will not be treated as outstanding for the purposes of the Bill. This is a straightforward provision.
Amendment No. 344 deals with the basis of compensation to be used in the circumstances that I announced in Committee; namely, that Churches and other charities would retain the right to receive market value for a 10-year period or until the move to CUV on the second appointed day, whichever is the longer period. This is achieved by introducing a new sub-section (2) into Clause 27. To do this, as I have mentioned, requires a few drafting changes provided for in Amendments Nos. 316, 317 and 318. These provisions require a definition of "charity" in Clause 8. This is done by Amendment No. 273, which, incidentally, also provides a definition of "community council" which has so far been lacking.
I should also like to draw attention to the three benefits which charities will now receive under the Bill.
First, the charitable organisations attach importance to the continuation of the charitable status of the land if it is held by a charity on White Paper day and later transferred to another charity without a break. I accept that proposition, and the wording of Amendments Nos. 270 and 344 secures it. This provision will be specially helpful in some re-organisations which I understand are currently taking place in Church and other charity contexts.
Secondly, as is being done with other types of transaction in the Bill, the time which will count in establishing when a material interest which a charity may have in land exists will be the time when the charity entered into a binding contract to acquire the interest rather than the somewhat later date of the conveyance itself. In relation to acquisition by an authority this is secured by the first part of the new subsection (2C) in Amendment No. 270 and in relation to the market value basis by Amendment No. 344.
Thirdly, hon. Members will no doubt have seen the announcement two weeks ago about the intended content of the regulations that will lay down the development that will be permanently excluded from the land scheme duty. One type of development that will be excluded is development, other than industrial development, where the total floor space created does not exceed 10,000 sq.ft.—15,000 sq.ft., as the hon. Gentleman said, in the case of industrial buildings, and 10,000 sq.ft. in the case of other buildings. Whatever the hon. Gentleman may say, this will exclude many buildings on the smaller scale, including, no doubt, many modern churches and also halls used for social purposes.
I should like now to come back to Amendment No. 270 simply to refer to its non-charity elements. These secure the following: first, a general rearrangement of the material in Clause 20(7) which appears in paragraph (a) of sub-section (2A) describing non-outstanding material interests; secondly, also in paragraph (a), the addition in Scotland of
the council of a district within the area of a general planning authority.

Thirdly, a material interest is to be treated as outstanding if none of the bodies mentioned in subsection (2A) has entered into a binding contract for the acquisition of the land—paragraph (b) of subsection (2A). This is a formal general change to be found in other places in the Bill. Fourthly, there is power for the Secretary of State to prescribe by order land which is not to be treated as an outstanding material interest—paragraph (b) of subsection (2B)—and such an order is to be subject to negative resolution procedure by virtue of the second parts of subsection (2C).
Perhaps I might now say a word about this last provision. The House will recall that in the White Paper last September we said that statutory undertakers and some comparable bodies would be able to acquire and develop land needed for their statutory functions without the intervention of local authorities. In considering who these bodies might be it became apparent that some were akin to nationalised industries and others more akin to local government bodies. The distinction is based on the fact that nationalised industry land can be in either operational or non-operational use, whereas land owned by local government type bodies can hardly be regarded in those terms. As a result, I have decided that the "comparable bodies" should be split between Clauses 6 and 7, with those akin to local government bodies being prescribed by order under Clause 6 and others being covered by Clause 7. The bodies that I intend to prescribe under Clause 6 may be exemplified by the Commission for the New Towns and the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies.
I hope that what I have said will help the House in its journey through this rather long group of amendments.

Mr. Rossi: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, may I ask him to deal with two matters that I raised? I am grateful to him for the technical explanation that he has given about the meaning of his amendments, but he has not answered the two matters of principle that I raised. The first of these is the White Paper day point about land owned before and after by charities. The other point was about the too short tenure period. Both matters are dealt with in the amendment and are substantial


matters of principle, and I hope that we shall get an answer to them.

Mr. Silkin: As I said earlier, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State Will deal with such matters when he replies to the debate.

Mr. Michael Latham: The House attaches the maximum possible importance to the legislative provisions relating to charities, and, therefore, it is important that any concessions that the Government seem to have made on this subject, whether they be the matter of acquisition of them or taxation, because the two are inextricably mingled for the purpose of the Bill, should be examined in detail.
Since I thrilled the Standing Committee with my oratory on 15th July I have been engaged in a gargantuan struggle in correspondence with the right hon. Gentleman on this matter and on the points that he made when he courteously replied to my speech on that occasion.
I am disappointed with the specific wording of what I can only describe as clause (2C) of Amendment No. 270 where it refers to
'a charity had entered into a binding contract for its acquisition.
When I raised this matter first in Committee I asked:
What about land for which they "—
that is charities—
had sought planning permission before White Paper day, which they did not own but which they were under contract to buy had planning permission been obtained? Why should that not come under these concessions? "—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 15th July 1975; c. 2673.]
In a letter of 4th August which the right hon. Gentleman courteously wrote to me he said:
We are considering the question of both binding contracts and also contracts conditional on the grant of a planning application which was still to be decided on White Paper day.
That being so, in view of the reasonably hopeful reply which the right hon. Gentleman gave on that occasion, and also in view of the specific concession given in the draft development land tax Bill for conditional contracts, I am amazed that this minor concession has not been made here and that the provision

refers solely to binding contracts. I ask the Government to think again about that before the Bill gets to another place. I cannot believe that the amount of land which charities were, in effect, under conditional contract to buy on White Paper day is so great as to prevent the Government from making a concession of that sort.
The second more substantial point is the question of taxation which is inextricably related to these matters, although I appreciate that it is not the subject of Amendment No. 270. The difference between White Paper day and non-White Paper day is so sharp that I am surprised. In a letter of 5th September the right hon. Gentleman said:
In respect of land acquired after White Paper day there will be no liability to DLT when this land is developed for the church or charities' own use but they will become liable to DLT on selling such land, that is on realising its development value.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) said in his excellent opening speech, we attach such importance to the future continuation of charitable activities and having an adequate stock of finances to deal with new situations such as populations moving, and so on, that we see no reason why the Government should not be prepared to make this concession and take away the rigid demarcation line of 12th September. They should accept that charities are in a different position from any other form of developer and say that they do not want them to be involved in this action at all and will, therefore, make this concession and let them out of it. That seems to be the only satisfactory way of dealing with this situation.
I welcome the Minister's notes, of which I am one of the recipients, being a member of the Committee. In his notes he refers to Amendment No. 270 and says that it secures that land owned by a charity on White Paper day and still owned by any charity at the time in question—that is, without an ownership by a body other than a charity—shall not be treated as an outstanding material interest; that is, it will not be subject to the acquisition duty and the suspension of planning permission.
I see no reason why that provision should be made. I can understand what is in the right hon. Gentleman's mind.


He is saying that he does not want a situation by which a charity sells land to a developer who does not develop but sells it to another charity. The House knows that I have an interest in this matter. I should have thought that the number of occasions on which a developer would want to sell land to one charity having bought it from another would be very few indeed. I see no reason to believe that that sort of activity is likely. This sort of provision will, I believe, cause possible difficulties in charities, since dealing through an estate agent or in other ways that charities may have to use may be the most effective way of getting land released so that they can deal with a new situation.
This sort of looking for loopholes in case someone should make a profit causes great problems in legislation, particularly relating to land. Here again, the concession would be so minor that I urge it on the right hon. Gentleman.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I support the Opposition proposals, although I appreciate that the Minister has gone a long way over the provisions relating to Churches and charities. I am worried about the 10-year period. I accept that he has come forward with the 10,000 sq.ft. exemptions, but some bodies will still be caught.
I understand from the Minister's notes and speeches that it is proposed to introduce the necessary clauses in another place. Would he not look back to his revered father and the 1947 Act scheme of the global sum? Could not Churches and charities be compensated out of a global sum?
I do not like the idea of chosen charities being treated in different ways over the sale of land, which is what we are trying to get at. We are trying to get land down to an existing use value or a sensible price so as to bring down the price of property. The Churches should not have this benefit ad infinitum, but they should be properly compensated for the securities they have. Ten years is not long enough. Nor do I think that this concession will cover all Churches and charities. There are bound to be some caught which will suffer.
I take very much on board the point of the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr.

Rossi) that the securities of these bodies, which they may have to leave with the bank, have already been hit and that, with this 10-year limit, few bank managers will be disposed to lend. There will be those who rush to get on and develop, probably badly, at a time when there is little demand. So should not these bodies be compensated from a global sum?
I am very sad that the question of pension funds has not been taken on board by the Minister. They are still in the same position. We argued about this in Committee, when I moved some amendments myself. I will go no further now, but the pension funds should be given some concession. They are already suffering substantially. If nothing is done in the Bill, I fear for the future.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: It would be churlish of those of us who served on the Committee not to recognise that what my right hon. Friend has announced are important concessions to the Churches and charities.
I have been impressed throughout the debate by the great reasonableness shown by my right hon. Friend in approaching this difficult and thorny topic. In the concessions announced so far, either in amendments or by way of promises of action in another place, together with the fact that he will have more discussions with the Church and other bodies on the outstanding points which have been raised, we should recognise that my right hon. Friend has maintained the undertaking that he gave and continues to give, to the Churches and charities, and that the concessions made are important ones, both of principle and in extent. It is true that there are matters of detail still to be discussed, but the principles have been conceded.
As for the 10-year rule, I may be at loggerheads with people who have urged me in the past to put down amendments to the Bill. In trying to deal with the scandals associated with land over the past 25 years, the Government are trying to deal fairly between those Churches and charities which hold land and are seeking to use it for a particular purpose in the foreseeable future and those which may hold land not for an immediate and definite use but as a continuing resource upon which they wish to call and with which they just wish to play the market


like anyone else, to get what they can, to gazump and make a profit where they can, often out of money and development made by the rest of the community.
I would not be associated with any group which sought to use land in that way. I came to this place believing that land belongs to the people. I still do so. When land is used to benefit people I will support amendments to help Churches and charities, but I will not help them to take part in some sort of roulette or gamble by increasing prices at the expense of my fellow citizens.

Mr. Tim Sainsbury: I would first declare a number of interests. Perhaps I should not risk incurring the Minister's wrath by listing them at length, but perhaps they could be on the record throughout this Report stage.
I go along with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) in thanking the Minister for such concessions as we have had for charities. I suppose that the appropriate phrase is being grateful for small mercies. As we wend our perhaps weary way through this piece of legislation, we shall I fear become aware of numerous areas in which the Secretary of State has discretion. This has taken rather a long time—far too long, in fact. Some, including my hon. Friends, have already argued for these limited concessions. We cannot be encouraged about the efficiency and speed with which the legislation will be administered when we have had to wait nearly seven months for these concessions, which the right hon. Gentleman has described as substantial.
Of course, some of the most important of the proposed concessions for charities have not yet appeared. In spite of the reasonably lengthy recess, which I hope all of us, including you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have enjoyed, we have not yet seen the wording relating to prevailing use.
As for the 10-year rule, I am sure that many charities will join me in resenting what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central referred to as charities "playing the market". As a trustee of a number of charities, I know that they are to all intents and purposes indefinite bodies. We look a long way ahead at

our land holdings, because we hope that our functions will continue indefinitely.

Mr. Clegg: Would not many trustees be failing in their duties and perhaps open to action if they did not get the best possible price available for trustee properties which were sold?

Mr. Sainsbury: I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says from the depths of his legal knowledge. This is, I think, the "fiduciary duty" of trustees. That is sometimes the excuse that charities use for accepting a better offer, and gazumping, but perhaps I had better not go into that.
The lack of concern for charities shown by the 10-year rule is likely to bring about premature redevelopment which could be costly and unnecessary to the charity. An example is a Church Army home which will in due course need replacement by more modern premises, more suitable for the continuing requirement. If the Church Army realises that if it brings the property up for revelopment after 10 years it is likely to be bought at current use value, it is likely to get on with the project now, even if it is not necessary or justified at this time. It could be argued, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) suggested, that they would be failing in their duty if they failed to do so. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to rethink the 10-year rule. It is unnecessary to restrict the concession to charities in this way. I do not understand what abuse he is trying to avoid. New Clause 1 is the right answer for charities.
I appreciate that we had a lengthy debate on new Clause 6 during the sixth sitting of the Standing Committee. Since that debate we have, I hope, all been encouraged by the renewal of all-party support—a point which has been made by the Secretary of State for Social Services—for the rôle of the private sector pension funds. This has been substantially reaffirmed since the debate in Committee. It is against that background that we should re-examine the potential effect upon the assets of those funds if their property can be taken away from them at current use value.
New Clause 6 is not concerned with giving a special privilege to pension funds, as developers; it is concerned with the


compensation that would be paid to pension funds if their land were compulsorily acquired. It is suggested in new Clause 6 that compensation should take into account the development of that land which would be compatible with the development control function exercised by local authorities. If new Clause 6 is not accepted the inevitable result will be a substantial deterrent to development by pension funds. Instead of developing those parts of their land holdings where there would be a change of use, they will sit on them.
I have no confidence—I doubt whether many hon. Members have much confidence—in the ability of local authorities to detect the smaller areas, and I do not regard 10,000 square feet, or 15,000 square feet for industry, as a meaningful exemption in this context. Local authorities will be unable to detect opportunities, social needs and pressures for redevelopment. The pension funds, which, as is well known, are substantial owners of property, will be completely deterred—not necessarily by themselves—from bringing land forward for development if the land is to be taken off them at only current use value.
Those who will suffer from this financial penalty are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) has already pointed out, the beneficiaries of the pension funds, not least the miners, those who work for the Central Electricity Generating Board and other funds that are well known for their acumen in the property world and for the size of their property holdings.
Therefore, I suggest that new Clause 6 meets a genuine point in new circumstances where the rôle of the private sector pension fund has been given all-party support into the indefinite future. Those funds are entitled to recognition of their rôle by the Government.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) complimented the Minister on a concession. So also did the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara). I wonder what is meant by "concession"? It means here that the Minister is ceasing to persecute charities by confiscating the Churches' land at below its value. I do

not regard that as a concession. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will stop persecuting them a little more.
The Government are seeking to take not quite all the Churches' and charities' lands at under their current use value. They are doing that only after a massive outcry from the Churches and charities about the unfairness of the Bill. Those bodies have said that under the Bill as it originally stood their land was to be taken away from them at current use value, and that if they sought to develop that land it could be taken from them merely because they sought to develop it under the acquisition powers given to local authorities by the Bill.
Let us be clear what the cessation of persecution is. It is merely that those Churches and charities which held land on 12th September 1974 will escape from the power, and later the duty, of local authorities to take that land away from them at current use value, their planning permissions being suspended. They will escape all this for only 10 years. What will happen to a Church or charity that finds itself holding unprofitable land which it held on 12th September 1974, or land which is not suitable for the further development of that Church or charity—land perhaps in a residential area which has been run down and where the Church wishes to rebuild elsewhere, or land on which a charity may have alms houses which it wishes to dispose of and put elsewhere? Those bodies will be able to dispose of the land which they held on 12th September 1974 at market value. However, they will have to buy land to replace it at market value. Suppose that the Church or charity finds that that land is not suitable because of another great planning scheme which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. It will have to sell that land at current use value.
Therefore, it is only land which Churches or charities held on 12th September 1974 to which this concession applies and for which they will not be caught by the Bill for 10 years. During that 10 years they cannot change their investment or their land for development without running grave risks. There was an outcry from the Churches when the Bill was published. I am sure that all hon. Members have received letters on


this matter. The Opposition have been complimented on having got this concession out of the Minister. Some have praised the Minister for giving this concession and a few have realised what a miserable and meagre concession it is in not recognising the public purpose for which Churches and charities exist.
Paragraph (2B) of Amendment No. 270 says:
A material interest in land shall not be treated as outstanding for the purposes of this Act if—
(b) it is of a description specified in an order made under this subsection by the Secretary of State.
We do not know what that order will be except that a document was issued recently by the Minister called "Annex A to Document on Scope of the Community Land Scheme". My copy is not dated but it came into my hands only in the last few days. In it he indicates what he hopes to put in the order. If he can issue that document in that way, why cannot he put all the information in the Bill so that we know exactly what will be law and not just what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind at the moment? He had in mind many matters when he first printed the Bill; thank heavens we have got them out of his mind. I want to know exactly what are his intentions about the order.
Amendment No. 270 goes on to say that:
any order made under that subsection shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
That is a most extraordinary piece of drafting. I would prefer the order to be subject to the affirmative procedure. If the right hon. Gentleman then goes on to refer to my amendment (a) a few lines down the page and accuses me of asking for the same thing, I assure him that my amendment is to his previous amendment on the Notice Paper.
One confusion that has occurred during the past week is the way in which the right hon. Gentleman, having put down amendments on the Notice Paper a month or so ago, has suddenly whipped them off, so that we have to study the amendments all over again. That is unfair to hon. Members who served on the Committee and to those who come new to the Bill on the Floor of the House. I

press the Minister to put into the Bill what he intends to put in the order, which he can do when the Bill goes through another place.
I support hon. Members who have spoken to new Clause 6. Apparently, there is to be no concession for pension funds. The great loss of value which will occur in those funds is an extremely serious matter. We must remember that pension funds are subscribed to by people of small means who put in their money in the hope that the funds will retain their value. The Minister will deliberately decrease the value of those pension funds, not just because when the funds dispose of property they will get only current use value but because at this moment the value is depreciated by the prospect of the application of the Bill to property owned by pension funds.

Mr. Sainsbury: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a survey shows that 86·5 per cent of the issued capital of the major property companies is owned by institutions, a great many of which are pensions funds?

Mr. Page: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that potent fact, which I hope will force the Minister to think again on this subject.

Mr. Douglas Crawford: I wish to confine my remarks to the position of the Church. I should perhaps declare an interest in that I am a son of the Manse. My father was a Church of Scotland minister.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) is not here. I was surprised to hear his implication that the Church was using land for speculative purposes. Some Churches at some time may use land for speculative purposes but that is not the main purpose of the Church. The hon. Gentleman said that the land belonged to the people, but the people establish institutions, one being the Church of Scotland, which is an extremely democratic body.
The Church is in the possession neither of the public sector nor of the private sector. It is in the universal possession of mankind. For that reason the 10-year rule is too inflexible. The Church of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central has been in existence for


a good deal longer than has my Church, but even my Church has been in existence for a long time and will be for a long time to come. I echo the plea made by the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) to the Minister to think again about the 10-year rule. Ten years is like an evening gone in the context of eternity.
I should know the answer to this question but perhaps one of the Ministers will either tell me or write to me. Does the Stornoway Trust count as a charity?

Mr. Michael Morris: Hon. Members on both sides of the House need to be clear about what has happened to the position of Churches and charities. We have gone from the stage of White Paper day, when they were totally forgotten about by the Labour Government in their zeal for the final total solution, to the halfway mark in the early hours of one morning when the junior Minister on duty told us that some charities would be exempt, to today where all charities governed by a certain Act are exempt for a limited period of 10 years. I admit that that is some degree of progress but it would have been far better had the Government recognised from the first day the real contribution that charities and Churches make to our country.
What surprises me is that the right hon. Gentleman in Committee made this statement:
The Government accept that charities are in a unique position.
The Minister used the word "unique" after several weeks' consideration of this matter. He went on to say:
Traditionally, many have provided services to the community that otherwise would have had to be provided by central or local government…As we told the Committee in our recent debates, the Government considered that solutions to the difficulties should be comprehensive and not piecemeal."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 15th July 1975; c. 2646.]
So in black and white the right hon. Gentleman is on record as saying that charities are unique; yet he has imposed a restriction of 10 years.
We are still in the fluid state of there being more amendments yet to come in another place after discussions yet to take place with interested parties and perhaps yet another Bill or at least regulations.

Has the Minister thought through what effect this policy will have on our older universities? They have been in existence for centuries and have used their land for the benefit of students and their communities over the centuries. Has the Minister any idea of the technological developments which are taking place on land owned by at least two universities, one in England, the other in Scotland? I refer to science parks. Has he any idea how they will be affected? They will not be covered by the 10,000 or 15,000 sq.ft. exemption.
Has the Minister any idea of the effect of the 10-year rule on the voluntary aided and, indeed, the public schools? Has he any idea what will happen when a charity wants to develop an old peoples' home or to produce sheltered accommodation? After all, we have only nine years, not 10, because one year has gone by since the White Paper was promulgated. Is it his intention to say that after nine years charities may no longer go ahead and use the resources of their land for the benefit of old people and other interested parties? The exemption limits of 10,000 or 15,000 sq.ft. would have been useless in the recent major development of the Northamptonshire youth clubs, which would not have happened under the Bill.
I accept that the Minister has brought some degree of realism to the Bill from a situation of total neglect. He is to make provision within the Bill to exempt a single dwelling, but charities and Churches deserve far more consideration than does any individual because they have lasted for centuries and their work is for the good of the community. In the Minister's own words, if they are unique they of all parties deserve to be treated uniquely and should, therefore, be treated totally outside the Bill.
I do not think that the Minister realises fully the strength of the reaction that he will cause if he insists on retaining the 10-year limit. I hope that in replying the Under-Secretary will spell out for the benefit of all Churches and charities exactly why there has to be a 10-year limit. It had better be a good reason. I warn the Government that if the reason is not a good one there will be a positive reaction in the country. The Minister may smirk, but the charities


are not smirking. They are bitterly disappointed at the fact that any Government could forget about them at White Paper stage. They believe that they have a rôle to play in the country, and they like to be treated properly.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. A. P. Costain: As the House is impatient to hear the Front Bench speakers wind up and as most of the points I wanted to make have already been made, I will make a very brief speech.
You and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have for some years been interested personally in a very large charity connected with children's homes. For some years I had the privilege of being the treasurer of that charity. During that period we followed a policy of rebuilding the home and rebuilding small houses for the benefit of the children. The operation of the Bill when enacted will prevent such a procedure being adopted.
Why is the Minister insisting on 10 years? Why apply a limit of 10 years so that the development which charities and Churches undertake will have to stop suddenly after 10 years? Does not the Minister realise that most charities depend for rebuilding on the revenue they receive and on such sales as they can make? If his conscience does not prick him hard enough to make him accept that, will he make an exception where rebuilding takes place in the grounds of a charity when the development is to be applied for the same purposes and for the benefit of the same type of people? Such an exception would not hurt anybody.

Dr. Alan Glyn: It is known widely throughout the country that the Opposition have very little sympathy with charities. I will not say that they have little or no sympathy with Churches because I know that many hon. Members opposite have deep religious feelings. The Minister is one such Member.

Mr. McNamara: Will the hon. Gentle-man accept that many of us believe that the Opposition have no sympathy with charities?

Dr. Glyn: If the hon. Gentleman looks through Hansard he will be proved wrong.

Mr. Rossi: My hon. Friend is not aware that he made a slip of the tongue. He said that the Opposition had little sympathy with charities. I think he meant to refer to Government Members.

Dr. Glyn: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I meant members of the present Government when in Government and in opposition.
The 10-year limit and the area limit may well be perfectly acceptable for anything but charities. However, the Minister should appreciate that charities and Churches follow long-term policies. After all, many of them have been in existence for hundreds of years, and some of them have existed for thousands of years. Planning of development cannot take place in 10 years.
It is fair enough if the Opposition want to abolish wealth in the private sector. [Laughter.] That is an entirely different matter. It is wrong to attempt to abolish charities and the Churches simply and solely by imposing on them rules which will make it difficult in the long term for them to follow policies in the general interest of the community.
Great attempts are made to redevelop some of the Rowton houses which are old and insanitary. No charity could make the modifications which are desired within a 10-year period; it takes much longer.
I know that the Minister is personally very sympathetic. I ask him to think carefully about the 10-year rule, because charities are different. They have been going for a long time. Many hon. Members on both sides wish their work to be continued. Anything that the Minister can do in the other House to help them to continue with their work will be welcomed throughout the country.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gordon Oakes): This has been a short and interesting debate on a matter of great concern to many hon. Members on both sides of the House. I make it clear at the outset that, despite what a few hon. Members opposite have said about the Government amendment and about the concessions, those concessions have been warmly welcomed and appreciated by the Churches and the charities. They are major concessions. The amendment propounded by my right hon. Friend goes considerably further


than the announcement he made in Committee on 15th July, particularly with regard to Churches.

Mr. Rossi: The Under-Secretary made a statement of fact. He said that the concessions have been warmly welcomed by the Churches and charities. They were warmly welcomed at first blush. They have since been studied. Most of my remarks were founded on direct criticism by the Churches and charities of the proposals as they now stand and on their feeling of dismay that this is the extent of the concession the Government are prepared to make.

Mr. Oakes: That is not reflected in the correspondence that I have had and which the Department has had with Churches and charities.
Governments are always in a difficult position. If they produce a Bill and stick to its wording, they are accused of being completely intractable, inflexible and unbending. On the other hand, if they pay heed to various organisations outside the House and listen to the Opposition, they are immediately criticised, as we have been continually today, for introducing new amendments, and for not being able to make up their minds in the White Paper. It is a little hypocritical of the Opposition to level these charges at a Government who, as the amendments show, have genuinely listened to representations from both outside and inside the House.
The major point in the debate arises on new Clauses 1 and 6. The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) asked why the concession had been confined to charity land held on White Paper day, whereas new Clause 1 would extend it to all charity land. The hon. Member asked, secondly, why the Government had chosen to have a 10-year period of exemption, which he considers to be too short.
I want to make it clear to the House what the Government were trying to do and what the Churches, certainly, and the charities, probably, understood that we were trying to do. We were not trying to create a separate privileged class of landowners for all time. In the amendment we are trying to meet the real difficulties which Churches and charities would have experienced unless we allowed a certain transitional period. The purpose was to allow a breathing space and

to make concessions to charities which—I wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend here—are in a unique position. I include Churches in that.

Mr. Rossi: I am sorry to interrupt the Under-Secretary again. I accept the statement he made in the spirit in which he made it. If he now finds that the charities consider the 10-year period of exemption to be too short, will he be prepared to extend the period? I have in mind, in asking this question, extending the period consonant with the Government's wish to make some concessions to charities but not to allow exemption for all time.

Mr. Oakes: I was dealing with the question of all land. I intend to come on to the question of the 10-year period. On the question of the length of the period of exemption, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) stated the position absolutely correctly. The Government were trying to strike a balance. We accept that there is nothing magical about the figure of 10 years. It is the period which the Government consider would be an appropriate length of time to provide this concession. As we think that it is a reasonable period, the Government are not likely to extend it.
It is a balanced judgment, I agree. The hon. Member for Hornsey may disagree with that as a figure. It is interesting to speculate that he is not saying to the House that the Opposition would consider that charity land ought to be exempted in all perpetuity. I take it that the hon. Gentleman, by the very intervention that he made when he asked whether we would give a greater period of time, was saying that he does not accept that charity land should in perpetuity lie in an exempted class.

Mr. Rossi: Our position is made quite clear in our new Clause 1. All I was asking was: if the hon. Gentleman refuses to accept outright perpetuity but considers that a certain period which would be of assistance to charities should be granted—in other words, if he finds a period of 10 years is too short—will he grant a longer period? I was not saying that the notion of perpetuity is wrong. I am saying that there should be a complete exemption for Churches and charities.

Mr. Oakes: I apologise. All I can say is that on balance I think the 10-year period is about right, and I shall ask my hon. Friends to reject new Clause 1.

Mr. Stephen Ross: The Under-Secretary has not dealt with the point which I put—

Mr. Oakes: I shall be coming to the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Stephen Ross: If the 10-year period is not extended, it will lead to considerable indecent haste on the part of a number of Church bodies and councils. It could lead to development which in many cases would be highly undersirable.

Mr. Oakes: I thought I had just said that the Government think that on balance the 10-year period is about right, so it is unlikely that the difficulties which the hon. Member is forecasting will arise.

Mr. Crawford: Mr. Crawford rose—

Mr. Oakes: I shall deal with ail the other points which have been raised, but if I keep giving way to hon. Members I shall be wasting time. I shall deal with the points which have been raised by all hon. Members. I am not being discourteous.
Having dealt with these main preliminary points, I should like to run through the various matters which have been raised in the course of the debate. I deal first with the pensions point in new Clause 6. We considered in Committee and in the Department all the arguments that the Opposition have put forward with regard to exempting pension schemes. It must be accepted that there is something very different between an investment policy in a pension scheme and the position of a Church charity. A Church charity by its very foundation, by the sort of creature it is, cannot pick and choose where its investment shall be. It is a very different situation with a pension fund, which can make investment choices.
The point has been made by some hon. Members that pension funds will start to deplete because they own land. The Opposition in a disgraceful party political broadcast on 1st October—I am very glad to say that the person appearing in that broadcast was not a member of the Standing Committee and, therefore, pre-

sumably had no knowledge whatsoever of what concessions the Government had given—stated that pension funds would suffer. The Opposition got the figures roughly right on the amount of money invested in land and property by pension funds, but they did not point out that that constitutes about 15 per cent.—that is all—of pension fund investments.
The second point is this. The existing investments in land are not affected by this measure. It is future investment policy which would be affected—the decision whether money is invested in speculative ventures on land. On broad economic policies, I hope the Opposition will agree that it would be a very good thing at the moment if pension funds invested much more in manufacturing industry and less in land speculation.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Sainsbury: Is the Under-Secretary suggesting that no pension funds are invested in any property which would be liable to be affected by a lower value by reason of the current use value provisions? Many of them have substantially more than 15 per cent. of their funds invested in property, including the funds for the benefit of those who work in the nationalised industries. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that in no case do they hold property which has redevelopment potential?

Mr. Oakes: Of course I am not making that suggestion. Investments which were made in some property during the period 1970–73 have proved very bad investments, because the investors bought at the height of the boom. However, that has nothing to do with this Bill.

Mr. Rossi: I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead the House with that figure of 15 per cent. Thirty per cent. of the capital of the investment fund for miners is invested in industrial and commercial property; 28 per cent. of the capital in the pension fund of the workers in the electricity supply industry is in investment property; manual workers' unions have 30 per cent. of their funds in commercial property; the General Electric Company has 23 per cent. of its pension fund capital invested in property. It is not right for the hon. Gentleman to say that their existing investments are not at risk as a result of the Bill. They will be caught. They


will have to sell to local authorities at one price and buy back at another price, and pay tax on the interest.

Mr. Oakes: It is investment policy rather than existing investments which is mainly at issue in this matter of pension funds.
The hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) referred to conditional contracts. I think the point he made was that where land was bought before White Paper day on a conditional contract the law comes into force after White Paper day. This is to do with land development tax, and I will put to the Treasury the points the hon. Gentleman made with regard to conditional contracts as well as binding contracts. I do not think there is a great deal between us, but I will put the point to the Treasury because it is a Treasury point rather than a point concerned with this Bill.
As the hon. Gentleman appreciates, the reason why charity land must not have an intervening owner is to prevent loopholes within the Bill. Loopholes could exist if that provision were not included.

Mr. Michael Latham: The hon. Gentleman will recall that I said that I thought the occasions on which that was likely to happen would be very few, but it might happen if a charity wanted land to be opened up and if the best way of allowing this to be done was to sell it elsewhere because the charity was not in a position to develop in a 10-year period. Would the Under-Secretary reconsider this matter? The number of loopholes likely to emerge would be absolutely negligible, and this provision might prevent some useful development.

Mr. Oakes: I accept that in practice it would rarely be likely to arise, unless it were picked upon as a means of avoiding the Bill in some way. But I undertake to look at the point again, without any commitment, and see whether anything may be done in another place.
The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) spoke of what he called an outcry from the Churches. Indeed it was, but I go back to what I said previously, that on Second Reading my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales made perfectly clear that we were reconsidering the posi-

tion. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central put down his new clause, which was then considered in Committee. I understand that in the United States of America there is a McNamara Act. We have gone only so far as a "McNamara clause" on this Bill, but it was considered closely by the Committee, and then, as a result of that important new clause, concessions were made, and they have been reproduced in the amendments which we are putting to the House today.
The right hon. Member for Crosby, in his emotive way, talks of an outcry and of persecution of charities, suggesting that the Opposition are the ones to be thanked for the concessions in respect of charities, not the Government, but I remember one of his hon. Friends talking about grubby little pieces of paper about the Churches coming before the Committee, and if the Opposition—

Mr. Michael Morris: I remind the junior Minister that the phrase was "some charities"—the Government had it in mind to give way to some charities.

Mr. Oakes: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that all charities, not merely some charities, will benefit. It is not our duty here—indeed, it would be an onerous task for the Government or the House—to sort out or make distinctions between one charity and another.
The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) referred to the Stornoway Trust. I have had a word with my hon. Friend at the Scottish Office, and I understand that this is an excellent institution. Apparently, the Stornoway Trust owns the whole town of Stornoway, and it seems to me that that is an idea adopted in Scotland which might with advantage spread south of the border. My hon. Friend at the Scottish Office will write to the hon. Gentleman; the hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot deal with that specific question in this debate.
As I have said, most of the discussion has turned on the question whether there should be a 10-year period. In our view, 10 years is about right, and that is why the Government chose that period. I ask the House, therefore, to accept the substantial and generous amendments


which my right hon. Friend announced during the debate, and to vote against the Opposition's new Clauses 1 and 6.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 266.

Division No. 330.]
AYES
[5.55 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Gray, Hamish
Nelson, Anthony


Aitken, Jonathan
Grieve, Percy
Neubert, Michael


Alison, Michael
Grist, Ian
Newton, Tony


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Grylls, Michael
Nott, John


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Hall, Sir John
Onslow, Cranley


Awdry, Daniel
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Page, John (Harrow West)


Banks, Robert
Hannam, John
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Beith, A. J.
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pardoe, John


Bell, Ronald
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Parkinson, Cecil


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Hastings, Stephen
Penhaligon, David


Benyon, W.
Hawkins, Paul
Pink, R. Bonner


Biffen, John
Hayhoe, Barney
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Biggs-Davison, John
Henderson, Douglas
Prior, Rt Hon James


Blaker, Peter
Heseltine, Michael
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Body, Richard
Higgins, Terence L.
Raison, Timothy


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Rathbone, Tim


Bottomley, Peter
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hunt, John
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hurd, Douglas
Reid, George


Brittan, Leon
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Brotherton, Michael
James, David
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Ridsdale, Julian


Bryan, Sir Paul
Jessel, Toby
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Budgen, Nick
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Bulmer, Esmond
Jopling, Michael
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Burden, F. A.
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Carlisle, Mark
Kimball, Marcus
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Carr, Rt Hon Robert
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Royle, Sir Anthony


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Knight, Mrs Jill
Sainsbury, Tim


Churchill, W. S.
Knox, David
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lamont, Norman
Scott, Nicholas


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Lane, David
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Clegg, Walter
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Cockcroft, John
Lawrence, Ivan
Shepherd, Colin


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Lawson, Nigel
Shersby, Michael


Cope, John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sims, Roger


Cordle, John H.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Costain, A. P.
Lloyd, Ian
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Crawford, Douglas
Loveridge, John
Speed, Keith


Critchley, Julian
Luce, Richard
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Crouch, David
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Sproat, Iain


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
MacCormick, Iain
Stainton, Keith


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
McCrindle, Robert
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Macfarlane, Neil
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
MacGregor, John
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Durant, Tony
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Stokes, John


Emery, Peter
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Madel, David
Tapsell, Peter


Eyre, Reginald
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Fairgrieve Russell
Mates, Michael
Tebbit, Norman


Farr, John
Maude, Angus
Temble, Morris, Peter


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mawby, Ray
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mayhew, Patrick
Thompson, George


Fookes, Miss Janet
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Fox Marcus
Mills, Peter
Trotter, Neville


Freud, Clement
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Fry, Peter
Moate, Roger
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Molyneaux, James
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Montgomery, Fergus
Viggers, Peter


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Wakeham, John


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Goodhew, Victor
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Wall, Patrick


Goodlad, Alastair
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Walters, Dennis


Gorst, John
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Warren, Kenneth


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mudd, David
Weatherill, Bernard


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Neave, Airey





Wells, John
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Welsh, Andrew
Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. Fred Silvester and


Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Wood, Rt Hon Richard
Mr. Anthony Berry.


Wiggin, Jerry
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)





NOES


Allaun, Frank
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Anderson, Donald
Fletcher, Ted (Darlingon)
McNamara, Kevin


Archer, Peter
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Madden, Max


Armstrong, Ernest
Ford, Ben
Magee, Bryan


Ashley, Jack
Forrester, John
Mahon, Simon


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Mallalieu, J. P. W


Atkinson, Norman
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Marks, Kenneth


Bates, Alf
Freeson, Reginald
Marquand, David


Bean, R. E.
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
George, Bruce
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Ginsburg, David
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Bidwell, Sydney
Gould, Bryan
Meacher, Michael


Bishop, E. S.
Gourlay, Harry
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Graham, Ted
Mikardo, Ian


Boardman, H.
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Millan, Bruce


Booth, Albert
Grant, John (Islington C)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Grocott, Bruce
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Molloy, William


Bradley, Tom
Hardy, Peter
Moonman, Eric


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Hatton, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Buchan, Norman
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Moyle, Roland


Buchanan, Richard
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Heffer, Eric S.
Newens, Stanley


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Hooley, Frank
Noble, Mike


Campbell, Ian
Horam, John
Oakes, Gordon


Canavan, Dennis
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Ogden, Eric


Cant, R. B.
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
O'Halloran, Michael


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian


Carter, Ray
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Orbach, Maurice


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ovenden, John


Cartwright, John
Hunter, Adam
Owen, Dr David


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Padley, Walter


Clemitson, Ivor
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Palmer, Arthur


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Park, George


Cohen, Stanley
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Parker, John


Coleman, Donald
Janner, Greville
Parry, Robert


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Pendry, Tom


Concannon, J. D.
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Perry, Ernest


Conlan, Bernard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Phipps, Dr Colin


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Corbett, Robin
John, Brynmor
Price, William (Rugby)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Radice, Giles


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Judd, Frank
Roderick, Caerwyn


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Kaufman. Gerald
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Kelley, Richard
Rooker, J. W.


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roper, John


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Kinnock, Neil
Rose, Paul B.


Deakins, Eric
Lambie, David
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lamborn, Harry
Rowlands, Ted


Delargy, Hugh
Lamond, James
Sandelson, Neville


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Sedgemore, Brian


Dempsey, James
Leadbitter, Ted
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Doig, Peter
Lee, John
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Dormand, J. D.
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Dunn, James A.
Lipton, Marcus
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Dunnett, Jack
Litterick, Tom
Sillars, James


Eadie, Alex
Lomas, Kenneth
Silverman, Julius


Edelman, Maurice
Loyden, Eddie
Skinner, Dennis


Edge, Geoff
Luard, Evan
Small, William


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Snape, Peter


English, Michael
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Spearing, Nigel


Ennals, David
McCartney, Hugh
Spriggs, Leslie


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McElhone, Frank
Stallard, A. W.


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Stoddart, David


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Stott, Roger


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Mackenzie, Gregor
Strang, Gavin


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mackintosh, John P.
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Flannery, Martin
Maclennan, Robert
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley




Swain, Thomas
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Ward, Michael
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Watkins, David
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Tierney, Sydney
Watkinson, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Tinn, James
Weetch, Ken
Woof, Robert


Tomlinson, John
Weitzman, David
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Torney, Tom
Wellbeloved, James
Young, David (Bolton E)


Tuck, Raphael
White, Frank R. (Bury)



Urwin, T. W.
White, James (Pollok)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Whitehead, Phillip
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Whitlock, William
Mr, Laurie Pavitt.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 2

EXEMPTION FROM 'RELEVANT DEVELOPMENT'—AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY

'Relevant development shall not include development connected with agriculture or forestry.'—[Mr. Raison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Timothy Raison: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): With new Clause 2 it will be convenient to discuss the following new clause and amendments:
New Clause No. 9—Exception of minerals and buildings, plant and machinery for their treatment and disposal and the deposit of waste materials—
'Relevant development shall not include—

(a) the winning and working of minerals, or
(b) the erection, alteration and extension of buildings, plant and machinery in or adjacent to an existing mineral site which are required in connection with the winning and working of minerals or their treatment or disposal, or
(c) the deposit of refuse or waste materials within mineral excavations already lawfully used for that purpose'.

Government Amendment No. 261.
Amendment No. 9, in Clause 3, page 3, line 35, leave out "all development except".
Amendment No. 10, in page 3, line 37, leave out "and".
Government Amendment No. 262.
Amendment No. 364, in Clause 4, page 4, line 2, leave out from second "of" to end of line 42 and insert
dwellinghouses on land shown in a development plan as land for residential use".
Government Amendment No. 263.
Amendment No. 28, in Clause 6, page 6, line 19, at end insert—
'"agriculture" includes horticulture, fruit growing, seed growing, dairy farming, the breeding and keeping of livestock (including any creature kept for the production of food, wool, skins, or fur, or for the purpose of its use in the farming land), the use of land as grazing land, meadow land, osier land, market gardens and nursery grounds, and the use of land for woodlands where that use is ancillary to the farming of land for other agricultural purposes, and "agricultural" shall be construed accordingly;'.
Government Amendment No. 266.
Amendment No. 365, in page 7, line 1, leave out from "land" to "suitable" in line 2.
Amendment No. 29, in page 7, line 1, leave out from second "land" to "relevant" in line 35 and insert
in respect of which planning permission is in force for any".
Amendment No. 366, in page 7, line 3, at end insert
and on which the authority concerned intend themselves to carry out or to promote the carrying out by others of relevant development".
Government Amendment No. 284.
Amendment No. 75, in Clause 17, page 15, line 40, after "section", insert
and in Schedule 3 to this Act".
Government Amendments Nos. 76, 286, 293 and 294.
Amendment No. 372, in Clause 18, page 16, line 10, at end insert
for the purpose of carrying out themselves or making available for the carrying out by others of relevant development of a kind specified by the authority".
Government Amendments Nos. 319, 320 and 338—new Schedule "Exempt Development".

Mr. Raison: The purpose of new Clause 2 which concerns "relevant development" is that it should not include development connected with agriculture or forestry. In regard to new Clause 9


we want that phrase to exclude various developments to do with the winning and working of minerals. Amendment No. 28 is concerned with the definition of agriculture. There are many other amendments in this group. I shall leave it to my hon. Friends to deal with both agriculture and minerals, as well as with the others in the list. I wish to talk about the important question of the position concerning "relevant development" in relation to the Government amendments.
There is no doubt that the Government have made substantial changes in the Bill. The early arrogance of the opening speech by the Minister in the Second Reading debate has given way to emollience in an attempt to buy support for the Bill. We have a series of concessions on planning framework, compulsory purchase and "relevant development", with which we are now dealing. The concessions are partly a matter of widening the excluded developments and of creating categories of exempt and excepted development, and partly a matter of incorporating some of the exclusions more clearly within the Bill. This is an improvement, but it does not affect our deep-seated objection to the Bill. The bureaucratic tangle remains, as does the need for extra staff, the immediate burden on public expenditure, and the scope for corruption. Furthermore, the split between planning and development rôles of local authorities still persists. The fundamental objection in principle to compulsory powers and the duty to acquire development land without the case having to be made also remains.
What I most deplore about the passage of the present Bill is the fact that the Government have failed to argue in detail its fundamental essence. We wish to make absolutely clear that we cannot accept the Bill. I wish to look at the package which has been grouped together in a series of amendments and also in a schedule. Essentially we are discussing the three new categories of exempt development, excepted development and the building of a single dwelling-house.
I begin by dealing with exempt development. The principle of this matter is set out in Government Amendment No. 261, which replaces the earlier proposal to define exemptions in regulations and spells them out in the new schedule, which is

embodied in Amendment No. 338. Anything that takes matters out regulations and places them in a schedule is from our point of view an improvement.
It does at least give the House some chance to discuss very important matters which have direct concern for the happiness of individuals. It is an improvement in principle.
The exempted categories are, I understand, outside the duty to acquire, and, indeed, allegedly—this is where we want clarification—for normal purposes are outside the power to acquire. As I understand it, there are still circumstances in which exempted development land may be compulsorily acquired, and I hope that the Minister will deal with this point in detail.
I want to quote from a letter in The Times today from Sir Frederick Corfield, who is known to most of us as a great expert in these matters. He has summed up a very important point very clearly. He states:
For example, certain classes of development are to be wholly exempted from the scheme ("exempted development") by exclusion from the definition of "relevant development". But the power to acquire is not to be amended accordingly. It remains a power to acquire any land which in the opinion of the authority concerned is "suitable for development", i.e. any development and not merely "development land" which is now defined as land which in their "opinion is needed for relevant development within 10 years" and which would, therefore exclude land for exempt development.
That sounds a bit of a rigmarole. No doubt the Minister has had the letter drawn to his attention. He and his officials should certainly read such expert letters in The Times. I hope that he will meet the point.
Uncertainty also applies to the second of the new categories—development land designed to produce a single dwelling-house. I am not clear whether this category is essentially to be classified with the exempted or excepted categories or is unique. We want it made clear. We want to know the circumstances in which this sort of land—land for the building of a single dwelling-house—can still be compulsorily acquired and what is the statutory basis by which it can still be compulsorily acquired.
Thirdly, there is the new category of excepted development. The concessions


do not go nearly far enough. Again, they represent some improvement—I do not deny that—but the Government are proposing that they should be set out in regulations rather than in a schedule. As we all know, regulations may be debated in the House but cannot be changed in that debate. One of the basic principles by which the House should operate is that when it is talking about matters which so directly affect individuals those matters should be capable not only of debate but of amendment.
There is here an issue of principle. It was raised at the beginning of the Report stage today by, among others, my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). He was right to make the point that what we are discussing is of fundamental importance to Parliament, rather than a purely technical detail. The Minister tried to make out that this is quite a small matter which can be looked at adequately in this debate on new Clause 2. We shall certainly look at it, but it is a fundamental issue and we should be told why these matters cannot be included in a schedule rather than put in regulations.
Again, why do we have to rely on Press notices for information about what the Government expect to put in the regulations? It is unsatisfactory that hon. Members should have to read in a Press notice about something which is to appear in regulations some time in the future.

Mr. Michael Latham: Is it not extraordinary that the Government can put down a specific schedule of exempted developments, which lists specific forms of things to be exempted, but leave excepted development to regulations?

Mr. Raison: "Extraordinary" is a charitable way of putting it. The latest statement by Justice makes the same point. It is an insult to the House that something should appear in a Press notice in some detail and then for us to be told, "These cannot go into a schedule but will go into regulations".
6.15 p.m.
According to the Press notice, "excepted development" will include all development of less than 10,000 sq.ft.,

industrial buildings of less than 15,000 sq.ft., certain changes of use—for instance, from housing to offices, or from farmland to playing fields—up to a 10 per cent. increase in floor space through rebuilding and enlargement, and industrial development on land owned by industry on White Paper day. Why cannot all these have been put before the House in a schedule in the proper manner? They have all been major issues in discussion of the Bill. They are all essential matters.
I understand that the Government have given ground on these things and I am delighted and grateful, but I still cannot see why these things cannot be spelled out and discussed by the House in a proper manner. We must also have a clear statement of what the concessions really mean. In particular, we need to know clearly the extent to which both exempted and excepted development land may still be compulsorily acquired. That is the crucial issue.
Sir Frederick Corfield's letter also summed up another aspect which should be made clear. He said:
There is also to be defined by regulations a new category of 'excepted development' for which authorities will have the power but not the duty to acquire land. If they propose to exercise such power the Secretary of State, we are told, will neither have the power to ignore objections on the ground that the acquisition is 'unnecessary or inexpedient' nor the power to dispense with a public inquiry, as he has in all other cases. The proposed amendment, however, leaves the decision whether these powers are to apply wholly in the hands of the acquiring authority; for provided they include in the compulsory purchase order a certificate (which is to be conclusive evidence of the facts therein stated and cannot therefore be challenged) to the effect that the land is development land, the Secretary of State's powers to ignore such objections and to dispense with a public inquiry remain.
In any event, of course, the fact that land is acknowledged as suitable for exempted or excepted development does not prevent an authority from forming the opinion that it is also suitable for some form of relevant development, thereby bringing it within the definition of 'development land'. That is clearly intentional but if these other results are intended the public is being misled.
That is a very important point. We must have a clear picture of where compulsory acquisition will still apply in the categories of exempted and excepted development and in the case of the single dwelling-house.
The effect of Government Amendment No. 284 is that development land
…means land which, in the opinion of the local authority concerned, is needed for relevant development within ten years….
In Committee, my right hon. and hon. Friends argued at some length about periods of time set out in the Bill, and the Minister must now justify the period of 10 years mentioned in Amendment No. 284.
Government Amendment No. 293 gives the local authority power to acquire any
land which, in their opinion, is suitable for development.
That phrase is used in place of the simple term "development land". Why have the Government now inserted the words
…which, in their opinion, is suitable for development"?
Is it designed to prevent the matter under consideration being referred to the courts, and to make the local authority the sole judge of what is suitable for development and what is not? In a matter involving individual rights, that seems, in principle, to be an unsatisfactory approach.
By and large, the concessions are improvements, but they do not satisfy the fundamental doubts and worries that exist. I quote one short passage from a letter from Mr. George Dobry and Mr. Michael Barnes which appeared in The Times on Saturday last. Mr. Dobry is one of our leading experts on this subject. The letter reads:
Secondly, the 'concessions' are modest to the point of being non-existent when closely examined. There is in fact an element of humbug because even land required for excepted development can still be acquired, i.e. 'for purposes of positive planning' or 'to prevent evasion of the land scheme'. When the Bill was presented many of us hoped that there would at least be an effective exception of land of less than five acres, which is what builders have asked for. The concessions are miserly and do nothing to relieve the fear that development other than infilling will grind to a halt before very much longer.
In spite of the concessions, there are still grounds for grave suspicion about these measures. The Minister will have to be at his most persuasive and explicit if he is to begin to satisfy us on this score. I believe that it will be impossible for him to do so. The Government will have to take these matters away, think about them and come up with something sensible if the Bill is to go to another place and receive a Third Reading.

Mr. W. Benyon: I deal with the amendments referring to agriculture and forestry. I declare my interest accordingly.
Those of us who were involved in the proceedings in Standing Committee are grateful to the Government for honouring their promise by introducing Amendment No. 85, which specifically mentions the needs of agriculture and forestry. However, we need a far more substantial reminder for local authorities by way of a main clause. It is for that reason that new Clause 2 has been brought forward. There is a precedent in the Countryside Act 1968. It is also relevant to refer to Amendment No. 338—the new schedule. The Minister will have noted that I have tabled an amendment to the Government's amendment. My only quarrel with the new schedule concerns the exclusions that it makes. For example, it excludes
operations for the erection of dwelling-houses or operations…for the erection, improvement or alteration of buildings used for the purpose of market gardens, nursery grounds or timber yards or for other purposes not connected with general farming operations",
My amendment would remove the uncertainty to the farming community that is presented in the new schedule and would honour the proposals originally made in the Government's White Paper.
I appreciate that the wording in the new schedule has been taken verbatim from Schedule 3 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 and from Schedule 8 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. There is rather a misconception, in that in those two measures the wording was used for the basis of compensation. In other relevant legislation a far more precise definition was provided to deal with intensive forms of agriculture. The origin of this wording appears to be the Scott Report of 1942, which advocated the greater control of intensive development in agriculture.
I put it to the Minister that under existing planning law there is adequate control. There is no fear of anyone getting away with anything. There is no fear of a free-for-all in agricultural development in respect of dwelling-houses or intensive forms of agriculture.
I suggest that the new schedule contained in Amendment No. 338 has two real inconsistencies. First, Clause 3 has


already been amended, so that a single dwelling-house is exempted, but a dwelling-house used for agricultural purposes is not exempt as a result of the wording contained in the schedule. Secondly, Amendment No. 264 defines agriculture by use of the same wording as that contained in the 1971 Act. Amongst other things, market gardens and nursery grounds are mentioned specifically in that Act as being part of agriculture. It is difficult to imagine a market garden without the necessary buildings.
I cannot believe that the Minister envisages that local authorities want to enter such a relatively unremunerative form of business, yet it is that part of agriculture which is most likely to be affected by the Act because it is on the urban fringes of development. Therefore, unless the local authorities go into business there will be a certain amount of difficulty. If the Minister agrees to the leaving out of the relevant words I suggest that the local authorities will not be accused of wanting to meddle in agricultural affairs. Of course, they will retain the power to acquire if they so wish.
I hope that the Minister will give consideration to these matters either now or before the Bill goes to another place. There is a great deal of uncertainty and the agricultural community needs to be certain how it stands on these various provisions.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I address my remarks particularly to new Clause 9, the clause being included amongst the many new clauses and amendments which have been scheduled for debate. New Clause 9 deals with relevant development. It is clear that there should not be included a number of the items that are specified, including the
winning and working of minerals".
As is tradition in this House, I have on many occasions declared my interest in this sphere.
The Government's handling of minerals reveals, by successive changes in the Bill, that they have a limited understanding of this specialist branch of the economy and the coverage of existing law. Developments since the White Paper, Cmd. 5730 of 12th September 1974, are worth noting. In the memorandum mineral extraction was listed among the permanent exemp-

tions. There then followed the Minister's observations in Standing Committee on 10th June 1975, when he accepted the special case for minerals but felt that there could be occasions on which the acquisition by local authorities could be desirable.
In the May 1975 consultation document, issued by the Department, non-relevant development was to be defined by regulations. This was later replaced in the September 1975 memorandum, by the Department of the Environment, by the new classification of exempt development, which is now defined in the third paragraph of Amendment No. 338. The schedule would cover development outside the acquiring powers of local authorities, and it should be extensive enough to cover the quarry curtilage and rights under the GDO. Further, the right to build up to 15,000 square feet after September 1974 would probably cover a ready-mixed concrete plant and a tar coating installation, but—and I emphasise this—pipelines remain to be dealt with. Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to deal with that specific during his concluding remarks.
The former permanent non-designated relevant development has now been replaced by excepted development to be defined by regulations. I make the plea that this matter should be included in the schedule and should not be left to regulations about which this House has no particular knowledge. This, I understand, includes minerals.
6.30 p.m.
The position is now as follows. Minerals will not be subject to the duty by a local authority to acquire—that is in Clauses 17 to 20—but power will be retained to acquire at any time, the authority only to be used in exceptional circumstances. A guidance note is to be issued by the Department to cover this point. I hope that the Minister will be more specific in his authorisation or in his note of guidance to local authorities about when this power can be utilised by local authorities. The power to acquire by compulsory purchase order will be subject to the objection that the acquisition by the authorities is either unnecessary or inexpedient. That is under Schedule 4(3) and (5)(b). Mineral operators will have a right to demand a public inquiry fully to develop their arguments as to


why the proposed action by the local authority should not take place.
Minerals are also exempt from Clauses 21 to 24 and Schedule 6 to the Bill relating inter alia to the suspension of planning permissions and the handling of planning applications.
What surprises me is that the Minister should wish to retain for the local authority powers to acquire the mineral lands. After all, minerals are not enhanced by the grant of planning permission. They must be worked where they lie. Their wealth is intrinsic and is in no way created by the community. The fundamental purpose of the Bill, as I understand it, is to grant to the community what derives from an act by a public authority which enhances the value of property. In this case I would have thought that the Minister would have gone further and completely exempted mineral development. At present local authorities have the right to acquire land for their purposes under Section 112 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. This should suffice, and no powers should be asked for in this Bill.
The Minister must be mindful of the fact that the reserve powers of acquisition under this Bill will eliminate the value of mineral lands or mineral reserves for security purposes in any scheme of financial arrangements, namely a debenture issue secured on the assets of the company by way of a floating charge. We have learned this in another Bill, the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Bill, which has been debated in this House. We have seen that as the ownership of the oil vests in the State it is not possible for companies to raise money on that asset. The same mistake is being made here. Because the Minister has the right to use a compulsory purchase order at any particular date it will be impractical for capital-intensive industry to raise in the open market the money it will require.
The Minister justifies the retention of these powers on the following grounds. First, it is to facilitate development where this could not be achieved by agreement among private individuals. But this is surely unnecessary as the provisions of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Acts of 1966 and 1974 provide for

such an eventuality. Second, it is said that lease-back arrangements with local authorities will facilitate environmental control. But, under current law, if the terms or conditions of a mining lease offered by a local authority are unacceptable the mineral undertaker can seek relief by application to the High Court. The introduction of the landlord system of control through local authorities would add nothing to the position. Moreover, if special conditions were required in addition to normal planning conditions Section 52 agreements are available under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 to enable the special terms to be implemented.
Third, it is said that local authorities may be in a position to prove the planning advantages of their proposals for development. This could cover the so-called mixed development—for example, mineral development followed by housing development. But this could be covered by conditions in the original grant of planning permission. Further, under existing powers local authorities could acquire the land under Section 112 of the 1971 Act.
The next argument put forward by the Minister is that this system will obviate delays. This must be sheer nonsense. Is there anybody in the community or in this House who would believe, after the Land Commission Act, that this would result? According to Mr. George Dobry, Q. C., in The Times of 11th October:
The Community Land Bill, with its division of development into excepted, exempted and other development, takes and distorts this concept of different classes. Without a corresponding reform of planning procedures the result can only be administrative chaos while officers struggle with extra routine tasks. In short, instead of a much needed simplification there will be further needless and bureaucratic complication.
It will be interesting to hear the Minister's observations on the devastating criticism put forward by Mr. Dobry.
Finally, it is said that this system is to prevent evasion of the land scheme. This is unlikely to arise through the winning and extraction of minerals. The Government should await concrete evidence of it rather than base their case on pure conjecture. After all, amending legislation could quickly eliminate any abuse in the unlikely event of that occurring. We have heard that the Government are to give their ideas and publish the Stevens


Committee report. When is this likely to come before the House?
I ask the Minister once again if he will completely exempt mineral developments—the winning and extraction of minerals which are necessary for building schools, houses and roads. The right hon. Gentleman has conceded a lot through some of the amendments that have been tabled but he has not gone quite far enough. I hope he will consider what I have said.

Mr. Nick Budgen: I want to make some general observations about the wide exceptions and exemptions which the Minister has allowed by his recent conversion to some of the arguments put forward in Committee. Before doing so perhaps I may declare an interest, in that I own two houses, each of which has the benefit of planning permission for two plots.
Those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who say that the concessions made are not enough are right, but they are substantial concessions and we ought perhaps to look at the concession relating to exempt development. It is very much wider than anyone believed to be possible. The previous exemption related only to one plot where that plot was owned on White Paper day—12th September 1974—and where the plot was to be used either by the landowner or his immediate family. The extension now allows any one plot owner to develop his plot free of the interference of this Bill, and it also avoids all the criminal sanctions which might have been brought against the plot owner under the old Clause 5.
Excepted development, too, brings wide relief from the effects of this Bill, because excepted development will not normally be acquired by the procedure in the Bill. More important, the owner of land covered under the exemption of excepted development will be free of the tyrannical expedited compulsory purchase procedure set out in Schedule 4 (2) to (4). He will be able to raise the objection that the acquisition is unnecessary or inexpedient and will have the power to demand a public inquiry.
There are two classes of relief which we should welcome, albeit grudgingly. I

believe that they are substantial when taken with the concessions made in respect of churches and charities. But let there be no doubt that this is a substantial derogation from the two principles upon which the Minister has most relied in presenting his earlier arguments. The first principle he has relied on is that of flexibility. As long ago as 12th September 1974 he was explaining in the White Paper how his third attempt at land nationalisation would succeed where the other two had failed. He said then, on page 3:
Moreover, the operation of both schemes provides valuable experience from which the following lessons may be drawn".
The third of those lessons was that
an inflexible scheme can only be self-defeating.
I suggest that that was the argument on which the right hon. Gentleman relied time and time again during our discussions in Committee. But the second and perhaps most important argument which I am sure that he had at the back of his mind was to attempt to destroy the land market and not merely to distort it. For that reason, on Second Reading he said:
But, so long as there remain private transactions in land—and these are provided for in the transitional provisions of this Bill—we must see that there is no advantage in private sales as against sales to local authorities."—[Official Report, 29th April 1975; Vol. 891, c. 239.]
I suggest that by these exemptions and exceptions the Minister has created a two-tier system of land acquisition and land development. The exempt and the excepted development will become immensely more valuable than the land which has to be sold to local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman will create a totally distorted market in land. The person who enjoys the advantage of being able to develop his own land, whether it be excepted or exempted, will find that he is in a much better position when applying for planning permission. He will find that he can avoid many of the bureaucratic delays which are inevitable under the Community Land Bill. Most important of all, he will have the freedom to sell his land on his own terms. In respect of industrial development—because some of the excepted development may be industrial development—he will have the freedom to retain a freehold.


There will be none of the arguments about whether it is to be a 60-year leasehold interest or a 99-year leasehold interest.
The person who can develop his land will have a freehold interest against which he can raise money. In addition—and this is very important—he will not be in the position of a person from whom land is acquired by the local authority and who has to sell to the local authority net of development land tax. He will be in a very fortunate position. He will pay his development land tax only when the Inland Revenue gets round to demanding it of him.
Anyone who has had any dealing in land knows, for example, of the difficulties of the capital gains tax. It takes at least two years for the Inland Revenue to collect tax on a land transaction. The Minister may not know that today we have a 26 per cent. rate of inflation. If a landowner retains 80 per cent. of the value of his land for two years, by the time he comes to pay his tax that money will have depreciated, in real terms by 50 per cent. So the landowner who has the good fortune to have excepted or exempted development will be in a uniquely privileged position.
The result is that land will greatly increase in value. This illustrates that there is a case for a total solution—for a Communist State. If the State has total power, it is a logical and hideous situation to have to foresee but none the less we can understand it. What is incompatible with a free society, however, is the attempt to try to combine individual rights and the distortions which the Minister has in mind.
6.45 p.m.
My final comment is a very much narrower one, but it is one which may have far more effect upon some individuals. It is one to which I hope that the Under-Secretary will give a very careful answer.
For many people their single most important asset is their house. In a non-legal sense, most people do not even own their houses. The average person has the freehold, but it is subject to a very large mortgage and the interest payments on that mortgage are, for most people, the single most important payments that they make each month. What they demand

from any Government is that they should know the value of their properties. They should not be messed about by inaccurate Government intentions about the value of their land. This is extremely important in the face of the modern iniquitous habit of announcing that legislation will be retrospective as from the date of a White Paper and not from the commencement date. I believe that it was vital for anyone who owned a plot or orchard to know exactly what the Government intended in respect of the exemptions under the old Clause 4. Surely the individual plot owner was entitled to know what the Government were doing about this in Standing Committee.
I hope that I shall be forgiven if I refer to what the Under-Secretary said after a long debate of four and a half hours on 12th June. I pause to note that it was 12th June, nearly four months ago, and that a great many land transactions affecting not very rich people will have taken place in those four months. The Minister noted that the debate had lasted for four and half hours, and he said:
But I can assure hon. Gentlemen that the basic principle behind the clause, that the provisions are limited to the classes of people to whom I referred, will not be extended or eroded.
It is essential in a clause such as this that the benefit which is conferred on a family or on an individual shall not be something that could be used as a complete evasion of the whole of the Community Land Bill scheme if attempts were to be made by individuals to get round the scheme by building individual houses on individual plots in this way. This is to benefit a closeknit family through the individual who has a single plot."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 12th June 1975, c. 697.]
Now we find the Government putting forward proposals which are directly contradictory to that very firm and clear statement of their intentions put forward by the responsible Minister on 12th June. It should be appreciated that many people will have sold houses and land in the belief that they would not come within the effects of Clause 4 and therefore that their land was substantially less valuable than it has turned out to be.
If the Minister had had the humility to say, "This is a matter about which we shall have second thoughts and, after the Labour Party Conference, we may find that we can come to a more sensible attitude about it," there would have been


something in what he said. But he made the clearest possible expression of his view and of that of the Government about this. It is disgraceful that the owners of small plots and with small sums of money invested in their houses should have been so grievously misled. I hope that the Minister will either have the humility to apologise to this House and to those affected in this serious way, or resign.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I wish to speak to new Clause 2. I did not have the privilege of serving on the Committee on the Bill, but as a lawyer I believe I am entitled to say that the law of Scotland as well as the law of England bases itself on what is now an asinine presumption that the citizen is presumed to know the law. I therefore came afresh, as a lawyer to the Bill, which is incomprehensible to any citizen, whether he be a lawyer or not. In that way alone the Bill is a severe restriction on the liberties of any subject who owns property.
Although the Bill is unsatisfactory in total, and inevitably so because it starts backwards by having many definitions which do not apply to its principle, it is most unsatisfactory in its attack upon agriculture and forestry, as it extends the bureaucratic principle.
I have no comment to make on politicians in general, theologians in general, dwarfs in general, Africans in general or bureaucrats in general; nevertheless, I believe that if one examines the various States of the world and their communities one finds that those that are poorest, the most depressed and least successful are those that have handed all functions over to a bureaucracy.
Essentially, a bureaucracy means nothing more than that one hands or takes from those who know what they are doing and are affected by what they do and puts it into the hands of people who do not know what they are doing or, even if they do, are not affected by what they do. People who grow trees and have farms are affected by the way in which they grow those trees and run their farms. The growing of trees and food is normally regarded by the Labour Party, for a reason I have never under-

stood, as something alien from industry. The food industry could prevent every-one's existence, because all of us eat, whatever we may think. It is the one industry which is regarded as not being an important political consideration.
We have had some experience of regionalisation. We have had some experience of what happens when we extend the fingers of those who do not understand and upon whom the effect of what they do has not the slightest importance to their jobs, themselves or their employment in regionalisation.

Mr. John Lee: The hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) has referred to the food industry. What about the Common Market? Are the antics of the Intervention Board relevant?

Mr. Fairbairn: The antics of the Intervention Board may be, but the bureaucracy of the Common Market is smaller than the bureaucracy of the Scottish Office. The Bill merely extends the Scottish Office, apart from anything else, and all the offices in England as well. It increases the number of drones and reduces the number of workers. It reduces the number who are making honey and increases those who are benefiting from the honey.
I shall return to the matter which I was discussing, which had nothing to do with the intervention of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hands worth (Mr. Lee). It is important that we should remember that central to all requirements in this country is the agriculture industry. I have read with the greatest of interest the Minister's proposed Amendment No. 85 which is that
the needs of agriculture and forestry
should be taken into account by the authority. That is a fascinating piece of meaningless double-talk. What does it mean? "I sentence you to death, but you have to take into account the needs of agriculture and forestry". I have. It means nothing. It merely means that words are put into the Bill to give some spurious decency to Ministers who may say, in order to get out of any criticism, "Of course I took into account these needs. I am not telling you what I thought about it, why I thought it or what conclusion I came to".
The words are put into the Act in typical fashion. They pretend to be accounting for the requirements of agriculture and forestry, but in fact give a decent statutory reason for ignoring them. They are meaningless, spurious, cynical and scandalous. There is no requirement to take account of agriculture and forestry at all, because any Minister, on the word of those who are under him, can always say, "Of course we took them into account". That is why it is essential that the festering fingers of the bureaucratic State should not be allowed to interfere in agriculture and forestry.
I represent a large agricultural constituency. I declare my interest. I am one of those who makes a loss at agriculture and probably makes a mess of forestry. But that does not alter the fact that I do not believe that the position will be improved if the Tayside Authority helps me to make a bigger loss and a bigger mess. Now that my agricultural constituency has been tied by regionalisation to a conurbation-orientated authority which is presently advertising for a part-time chauffeur for its chief executive in order to increase the rates in the rural areas, it seems to me important that those people should not be given the power to say, "We shall do what we like with agricultural and forestry land. We shall always be able to say that under the schedule, although we do not need to give any reason or provide any proof, we took it into account."

Mr. Crawford: Mr. Crawford rose—

Mr. Fairbairn: With great respect, I think I know what the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) wants to say, namely, that it was a Conservative Government who introduced regionalisation. He has said it so often. I am glad to say that I was not a member of the Government who brought it in, but I should like to be a member of a Government who took it out. It is essential that we should not have these spurious descriptions that politicians have got into trouble over for a long time. To say that one will take it into account is just a stupid falsehood. If one does not say, as new Clause 2 says, that it will be exempt, one is just using words to falsify what was previously in one's mind, namely, that one had no intention whatever of considering the interests of agriculture and forestry in the first place.

Mr. Michael Latham: I wish to draw the attention of the House to Government Amendment No. 261. First, I wish to say something nice about it and then something rather less nice.
I wish to refer first to subparagraph (b), which gives the new exemption for
development consisting exclusively of the building of a single dwelling-house".
Thank God that at last some common sense has prevailed and we have got rid of Clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill, which, of all the bad drafting of the Bill, came fairly high up the list. There was a long list of uncles, cousins and aunts for whom one was allowed to build a house in one's garden, provided it was the right sort of uncle and cousin and not the wrong sort. We spent many happy hours in Committee mulling over this trouble. Thank God the Minister has taken the sensible attitude of cutting it out and giving us single dwelling-house exemption, but would that it were a larger exemption than that.
I turn to subparagraph (c) where, I am sorry to say, I must be less complimentary. This subsection deals with the new class of excepted development.
As I want to speak specifically about the small sites exception, I repeat my interest in rather more detail this time than I declared it on the last occasion by saying that I am a director of a house-building company. One concession which ought to be written into the Bill is that which the Minister announced by Press notice only a couple of days ago, in which he said:
Any development…where the total floor space created does not exceed 10, 000 sq.ft.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to that as meaning for housing development 10 to 12 houses or up to 20 flats.
7.0 p.m.
This exemption should be written into the Bill because, as many hon. Members, including myself, made clear in Committee, those of us with practical experience of the industry know that it is not possible for a small builder to borrow money from a bank using his land as collateral to finance his activities unless an exemption of that kind is written into the statute. Bank managers, quite rightly, are notoriously conservative and circumspect when it comes to lending


their customers money, as they should be. They will not be too impressed by exceptions in regulations which can be, and often are, changed.
If the Minister has at last come to the conclusion that there should be an exception for small sites, as it appears from the Press notice, though not from the Bill, that he has, I would plead with him to put it in the Bill. It will be hard enough for small builders to raise money anyway under the provisions of the Bill to finance their ongoing activities, and it will be extremely difficult unless that is specifically written into the legislation. It would make no difference to the principle of the right hon. Gentleman's concession, but it would make a great deal of difference to the building industry.
I am absolutely astonished to see that we have a quantified exemption of 10,000 sq.ft. When I moved an amendment in Committee on 22nd May which sought to exempt sites up to 2 hectares, which was the figure for which the House Builders Federation had asked, the Under-Secretary of State, resisting the amendment, said:
The first difficulty, therefore, is the enormous difference in various parts of the country, given the value of land, the scarcity of land, the arrangement of land and so on, to name any area of land…as to what should be excluded from the Bill…. With any limitation of size of a plot, one runs into this further difficulty."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 22nd May 1975; c. 237.]
It appears that between 22nd May and today, 13th October, the difficulty has vanished. Whereas my exemption for 2 hectares was apparently resisted on the ground of difficulty, we now have a concession announced by the Minister in a Press notice—not in the Bill—that it is to be 10,000 sq.ft. If that concession can be given now, it could have been given then, and it could have been given a great deal more speedily, thereby allowing the industry to get on with its job.
I turn now to the question of land held by a builder as his stock in trade on 12th September 1974. Again, I am afraid that a most unsatisfactory word occurs in the guidance which the right hon. Gentleman has given. We have lost count of the number of consultation papers that

we have had, but this one, dated September 1975, states:
As explained above 'excepted development' will be within the scope of the acquisition power under the Bill. However, the presumption will be that the power will not normally be used to acquire land for such development save in exceptional circumstances.
I draw attention to the expression "not normally". When this word "normally" was first conjured up by the Secretary of State in a Written Answer on 27th January, he explained what he meant. He said that the whole point of letting builders off the hook, so far as their stock in trade went, was that there should be no hold-up in the development process under the Bill. He went on:
Exclusion from acquisition will, therefore, operate only where it is clear that development is likely to be achieved reasonably swiftly without public intervention.
He then went on to issue a very direct threat:
Where a local authority consider that acquisition is necessary to achieve early development I shall be prepared to consider compulsory purchase orders on their merits."—[Official Report, 27th January 1975; Vol. 885, c. 47.]
I want the right hon. Gentleman to make that clear when he replies to the debate. Does the Secretary of State's guidance still hold good? Is that still to be the policy? Is the definition of "normally" to be that a builder is not getting on with the development at a speed which the local authority considers satisfactory?

Mr. John Silkin: Mr. John Silkin indicated assent.

Mr. Latham: The right hon. Gentleman nods assent. If so, first, why is there nothing about it in the consultation paper? Secondly, why is there nothing about it in the Bill? Thirdly, what criteria are local authorities to use in determining whether a builder is building at a speed which they consider suitable? What experience have they to make a decision of that kind? How much of their own money are they putting at risk? These are questions to which the House is entitled to answers.
There was only one fair decision which should have been taken about a builder's stock in trade land. That was the decision which, for example, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham


(Mr. Rippon) took when he announced the infrastructure contributions at the end of 1973; namely, that if one held the land or had planning permission on a certain date, that was it, and one was exempt. There was no question about "normally" or conditions of speed of development and so on.
The stock in trade land of a builder is essential to his activities. The right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted the housing programme to go ahead. If that is what he means, let him put it in the Bill. Let him say what he means and stick to it.

Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and Melton (Mr. Latham) have already pointed out the remarkable way in which Government spokesmen seem to have changed their minds since the Bill was debated in Committee. That does not give any great encouragement to people who want to rely on regulations or Government statements.
My hon. Friends have referred eloquently to the inadequate nature of these concessions for agriculture and house building. They are just as inadequate for industry and commerce. One of the testaments to the lack of understanding, or perhaps concern, for industry and commerce shown by the right hon. Gentleman is the manner in which excepted development is treated in the provisions of Amendment No. 261.
As has been pointed out, we now have a presumption that the power will not normally be used. The right hon. Gentleman may not be aware that a great deal of industrial and commercial development is carried out by owner-occupation. An owner is able to carry out development with speed and efficiency because he owns the land, and particularly in industry he can get straight on with planning his plant acquisition programmes and run them in parallel with the town planning procedures. However, under this form of regulation—not in the Bill—instead of certainty, he must rely on presumption. The inevitable consequence will be delay, and delay, as I am sure all hon. Members will agree, means money. Uncertainty and delay will increase costs for industry, commerce and house building. There is the difficulty of borrowing on the security of land when at best people

can refer to regulations which are hedged about with presumption and the use of words like "normally". This is profoundly unsatisfactory.
I suggest that there is no reason why we should not have written into the Bill complete exemption for any development carried out by industrialists or users of commercial land on property that they own. The situation proposed by the Government will inevitably lead to delay and increased costs. The right hon. Gentleman should face this situation.

Mr. Graham Page: I have great sympathy with the Minister, who started with this Bill on the basis that it was a takeover of development land. That was the whole basis of the Bill—development land. Unfortunately, he put into the Bill that development land was what the deputy planning officer of a district council thought it might be. I do not know what would have happened if the assistant planning officer of the county council thought it was something else. Undoubtedly, this was a nice easy definition of "development land".
We pressed the right hon. Gentleman in Committee to be a little more definitive and he has embarked upon it under these amendments today, but he has run into deep water in doing so. Amendment No. 261 says what relevant development means, and it sets out "any development" except the three items set out there. The first item which is excepted is the classes of development set out in a new schedule and the three classes there set out are those included in the general development order. For heaven's sake, did anybody ever think that the minor things set out in the general development order were developments which could make it development land which could be taken over? This ought to have been exempted right away, and I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman nodding in agreement.

Mr. John Silkin: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, there is a certain professor with Conservative inclinations who, on radio, would have disputed what he has just said, because he said that every minor thing forces the local authority to make acquisitions.

Mr. Page: I think the right hon. Gentleman knows that I am a little independent of professors and like to put my


own case. No one would object to calling anything included in the general development order development.
The next excepted point is one that has been mentioned several times during the debate, excepting the single dwelling-house. There is here a practical point. Is that single geographically, or single personally? If I have several plots around the country and I build a single dwelling-house on each plot, is that a single dwelling or is it to myself that it must be single? It seems to me that if this is geographical and not personal it is a very wide exemption. I think that we must clear up what is meant by a single dwelling-house.
The third point that is excepted is classes as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State by regulations. The Secretary of State has told us what he intends to put in those regulations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) asked, why cannot he put them into the Bill itself? The note which the right hon. Gentleman said he intends to put in the regulations—the document annex A to the document on the scope of the community land scheme—has some frightening paragraphs. It says:
What is excepted from the scheme is development and not land"—
I shall come in a moment to what we mean by development—
The development as set out in the regulations will be able to take place without the land needing to come into public ownership for that purpose. The regulations will not affect the duties of authorities to buy land which is needed for relevant development.
This means that if one has a plot on which one intends to build a single house a local authority can step in before one has exercised that right and acquire the land because it is development, and it is not the single plot land on which one intends to develop that is to be excepted.
The document goes on to say:
The making of excepted development regulations will not remove the need for administrative guidance on the sorts of development which, although they are not strictly excepted development, should be allowed to go ahead without public ownership.
These regulations are not going to be comprehensive in any way. We are still to have "Big Brother"—whether it is the Secretary of State or the assistant deputy town planning officer of the dis-

trict council, I do not know, but there will have to be administrative guidance.
That paragraph looks all right because it looks as though it will extend exceptions, but there is this frightening finishing sentence:
This applies especially to the phasing in of the scheme but there may also be types of development which, because of definitional problems, cannot be dealt with in the regulations and will remain to be excepted by administrative action.
We have not a clue what those are, so we are still left in doubt, and I should congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on retaining that to which he held doggedly during the Committee proceedings—namely flexibility. But it leaves great uncertainty amongst the public.
7.15 p.m.
Having said that what is excepted from the scheme is development, let us look at what development means in the Bill according to these amendments that are grouped with new Clause 2. We started in the Bill with a definition of development by reference to our old friend the 1971 Act. It is all right. I accept that willingly, but then, coming to the top of page 7, we see that "development land" means
land which in the opinion of the authority concerned "—
which, of course, is the officials of the authority—
is land suitable for relevant development.
But now all that is removed and we are told in Amendment No. 261 that it is any development except those three that I have mentioned.
Then we come to the definitions of development land. The first amendment on that is No 266, on page 2548, which starts by referring us to Clause 17 and says that development land is the land as defined in Clause 17. Turning to Clause 17, we get to Amendment No. 284. Clause 17 is the clause which brings development land into public ownership, and here there is a significant new definition of development land. Amendment No. 284 says:
In this Act"—
and I stress those words to start with because later we find that they do not mean what they say—
'development land' means land which, in the opinion of the authority concerned"—


one needs the deputy planning officer, or the assistant, deputy, deputy, deputy planning officer—
is needed for relevant development within ten years from the time at which they are acting.
The significant words there are "is needed" because earlier in the Bill one found the words "the land is suitable". Now we have "is needed". I welcome those words but I do not welcome the phrase
in the opinion of the authority concerned".
But we have made some progress in saying that the land must be needed for relevant development.
Then we come to Amendment No. 293, on page 2566. This is an amendment to Clause 18, which, as the House knows, is the clause which gives power to the local authorities to acquire land, but in this case it is land "suitable for development". We have the definition in the Bill. We are told about all development land as being land needed for development, but when we come to the acquisition powers of the local authorities under Clause 18 it is "land suitable for development".
Then we have the final conclusion making everything worse confounded. On page 2596 we have Amendments Nos. 319 and 320. These amendments are to Clause 27, which deals with compensation and the planning assumptions when compensation is being calculated; that is to say, one calculates the compensation on the assumption that the planning permission will be refused for certain things. According to the amendments, in paying compensation one must assume that planning permission will be refused for all development, because the word "relevant" is cut out. One must assume that planning permission will be refused for all development. That is absolute current use value, of course, but it says "all development", and the next amendment, No. 320, says "except those which are excepted by the exemption schedule."—Therefore, it does not except planning permission for single dwelling-houses or planning permission for any of what I call the regulation classes.
So here is another definition for the purpose of compensation. We must assume that, although the Bill gives one the right to erect single dwelling-houses

curiously enough, is part of our con-when it comes to compensation one cannot get planning permission for building that single dwelling-house.
This is a cheat. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not mean it. I am sure that he has been misled by these six definitions of development and development land which I have read out. I hope that he will look at them carefully. I hope that I have explained it clearly enough, when he reads the record, for him to realise that he cannot leave at least the compensation one as it is. I do not think either that he should leave the false distinction between Clause 17, where development land is land "needed" for development, and Clause 18, where it is land "suitable" for development. This will cause tremendous confusion to those who have to administer the Bill.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Having listened to the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) I am now more confused than ever and I do not think that I am alone in that. One would like to support new Clause 2, which obviously makes sense, but it appears that the Minister has gone part way to that end with the new schedule.
I want to ask a question about horticulture. In Amendment No. 28 the Opposition define agriculture as including horticulture. In my constituency there is a new and expanding—at least, expanding until the oil crisis—horticultural development, and some of those buildings are certainly in excess of 10, 000 sq.ft. As I understand it, they will not now come even within the regulations as excepted development. One has exempted development and excepted development and one begins to wonder where one will finish up.
This must be made abundantly clear. I do not believe that my constituents will understand where they are. Are they to be excepted as part of the agricultural or horticultural business or, because their properties are above a certain size, are they to be exempted, or will they come under relevant development?

Mr. John Silkin: This has been a long and, I think, interesting and important debate. What we have been discussing, rightly—not always directly but always


with it in the background—is the heart matter of the Bill, the question of relevant development and development land.
I am sorry that I was considered arrogant in my Second Reading speech when I stated a matter of principle and philosophy when telling the House why I thought that the Bill was necessary. I had hoped that the various consultations that we had with all the parties—this Bill has been the subject of more consultations with associated bodies than any Bill there has ever been—would be generally recognised and greatly appreciated.
The points made by the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) rang a bell, and I said to myself "Meeting with the National House Builders Federation in January." Most of the points raised are old friends. When the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) spoke about agriculture I could hear the views of the NFU. And so on. This is very good, the kind of basis which was needed. So I make no apology for having spent a long period on consultations—and continuing, as I am with the charities—and also for occasionally listening to what is said to me. That is not a bad thing. Anything which could help within the main principles of the Bill to make it more sensible and clear would obviously be acceptable to any sensible Minister and, I hope, to any sensible Committee.

Mr. Budgen: Surely the right hon. Gentleman would agree that there must in a Bill be some issues on which a Minister would not give way and others on which he would wish to have further consultations. The only way in which the public can know where they stand is, during proceedings on the legislation, for Ministers to indicate where there is a possibility of their changing their views. On the other hand, if Ministers give the impression that that which will be changed is unchangeable, then they totally mislead the public about their important property rights.

Mr. Silkin: I do not understand that intervention. Surely the whole basis of Committee and Report stages and proceedings in another place is to consider what amendments and changes may be made to a Bill and what the Minister will and will not be able to accept. That,

curiously enough, is part of our constitution and has been going on for a long time; but in addition, when a particular Bill affects outside interests—local authority associations, for example—it is right to consult them and to come to conclusions as a result.
What has happened in this case is that it has been accepted by the Government that what was required was as much identification of what was intended to be done as was compatible with what the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) called our flexible approach. Indeed, much of the Committee stage concerned that flexible approach. I think that we have been able to do a great deal along these lines with the new basis of relevant development, the level of relevant development, then above it, as it were, excepted development, and above that exempt development and the ability to put exempt development in a schedule, moving most excepted development into regulations, which, one hopes, will flow fairly soon from the Bill and which we have done our best to indicate as a basis for consultation. All this certainly clears matters much more than they were when one considered doing them administratively.
Hon. Members opposite have always said that we can change our minds very quickly, and so on. It is more difficult to change one's mind when it is a matter of regulations, for example, because then one has to come back to the House. I noticed to my surprise—this is a very small point—that when discussing regulations the right hon. Member for Crosby seemed a little cross that one could actually add to these regulations administratively—in other words, make the excepted development wider. I should have thought that it was much more to his philosophy that the more which could be excepted the better. Perhaps he will allow an old friend to tease him since he is good at teasing others.

Mr. Graham Page: I will take the teasing, but there are signs that the regulations will not be final, that there will still be a discretion outside those regulations which will leave the developers, the land owners and the local authorities themselves in doubt.

Mr. Silkin: The point about the whole basis is that I started by saying that it


needed to be as flexible as possible but that within that flexibility one needed to be as definite as one could. Therefore, this basis does not, as far as excepted development and administrative action are concerned, freeze the situation for all time. It would be wrong and against the whole principle of the Bill if that were to be so.

Mr. Raison: On my right hon. Friend's point, can the Minister assure us that additional regulations will only add to excepted development and will not subtract from existing categories of excepted development?

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), quite rightly, is trying to draw me further on this than any Minister could be drawn. It is not the intention to reduce the category at all. Any politician who uses the word "never", just as any politician who uses the word "always", does not deserve to be a politician. But if we are talking about what is in view at present, the hon. Gentleman is quite right,

Mr. Michael Latham: Will the Minister accept that it is important that the figure of 10,000 sq.ft. should not be lowered by subsequent regulations, because many extremely important commercial decisions will have to be taken on the basis of the Press release which has been issued?

Mr. Silkin: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says. We did not arrive at a figure of 10,000 sq.ft. for non-industrial buildings and 15,000 sq.ft. for industrial buildings lightly. It was carefully worked out.
I considered sympathetically the exception of two hectares or five acres. My mathematics on hectare-acre translation is not good, but I think I have it about right The hon. Gentleman knows that I considered this carefully. I made it fairly clear in Committee and in discussions with the house builders that I was in some difficulty because acreage can mean many things. An acre can produce 14 or 16 houses or two houses. It can also produce an enormous number of flats. It depends where the acreage happens to be. The problem was to arrive at some quantifiable basis for exception from the duty. It was then that we decided that it would be better to

do it by measurement. There is no confusion between us on this matter. If we had been able to find a better definition I would willingly have announced it much earlier.
I should like to deal with the various points arising out of the amendments which were proposed under the new clauses. The hon. Member for Buckingham and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) have agreed that the Government have gone a good way towards giving the protection to the special position of agriculture which they wanted. There is no question about that. In the exemption the Government have gone further still. There are reasons why we cannot go as far as Conservative Members would like. I should like to do so but, frankly, it cannot be done. There must be an acceptance that agricultural dwellings should be within the power. The hon. Member for Buckingham seemed to accept that agricultural dwellings should be within the power. That is right. It would mean that an authority could buy land for the erection of such buildings but if amendment (a) to Amendment No. 338 were accepted there would not even be a power. By exempting it would prevent the land from being bought.

Mr. Benyon: There is power under exiting planning legislation.

Mr. Silkin: That is not strictly true. My information is that this would not be possible on this basis. The schedule headed "Exempt Development" is important when it comes to value as well as to acquisition. It is related to Clause No. 27 by Amendment No. 320. There cannot be any disadvantage that can be suffered by a farmer on the normal basis of valuation under the Bill. To exempt agriculture in the way that the hon. Gentleman has suggested would be impossible within the scope of the Bill as it stands.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I should like to remind the Minister of the time in Committee when I questioned the Under-Secretary closely on farm cottages. His answer then was that these would normally be exempted from relevant development. I am becoming confused, because it would appear that in this schedule, in which the erection of dwelling houses is specifically excluded from


the exemptions, a farmer who wishes to erect two cottages—this is relevant to the tied cottage legislation, which will shortly be placed before the House—may find himself in an odd position. Will the Minister confirm that in normal circumstances a farmer making planning application for agricultural cottages will not find himself involved in having to sell the land to the local authority?

Mr. Silkin: Yes, I can confirm that. That would come under the normal excepted development situation. I was dealing with the exempted. In his letter Sir Frederick Corfield seems to muddle exempted and excepted development. If the hon. Gentleman reads it he will appreciate that that is so. I mention that in passing.

Mr. Benyon: In view of the Minister's last remark, that the local authorities would not acquire in normal circumstances, what reason is there for not putting it in this schedule?

Mr. Silkin: I am saying that because this is an exemption this is the exempted category. In answer to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) I have said that the illustration he gave would come within excepted development. In the normal course of events this would be so if one were dealing with a small number of dwellings of the sort to which he referred. The hon. Member for Buckingham will be aware that since Committee the exempt schedule has been amended to take into account the problems of agriculture. I hope that that will be sufficient.

Mr. Fairbairn: I am impressed by the right hon. Gentleman's assertion that to exempt agriculture would be impossible. I was not a member of the Committee, but I understand that to have an area of 10,000 sq ft was also described by the Minister as impossible. Is the right hon. Gentleman suddenly converted to possibilities? Why cannot he exempt agriculture?

Mr. Silkin: For reasons with which we are all familiar the Hansards were not generally available. This is perfectly understandable. We were searching for a particular formula rather than the acreage or hectarage formula which the hon. Member for Melton would have

liked. Therefore, we came up with this. I have said that it would be impossible to bring this into exemption in the way that the hon. Member for Buckingham seeks to do in his amendment. We listened to a great deal of what was said in Committee. The hon. Gentleman will give us the credit for this, and we have moved a good way towards it.
Much the same point is at issue with minerals—whether one should exempt or whether it is sufficient to keep them within the excepted area. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) asked me when the Stevens Committee Report was likely to be ready. The answer is that it will be ready probably by the end of the year.
One must look at the question of minerals within the general scope of the need to acquire—the difference between excepted and exempt. Minerals may not be enhanced by planning permission to get them, but the land in which they are will be vastly increased in value. Minerals are left in the power because there may be cases where the additional compulsory purchase order power could be advantageous both to the mineral operator and to the local authority, for example, in the restoration or subsequent use of the site, even though the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act is available. That is basically the reason. The hon. Gentleman will find that there is no predisposition on the part of the mineral interests to object to that. On the contrary, it has been reasonably welcomed.

Mr. Skeet: Is the Minister prepared to accede to the proposition that under the ordinary planning control conditions can be laid down in mineral licences to cover development? As excepted development is covered by regulations, is he pre pared to set out in answer to a Parliamentary Question the general content of the regulations he is proposing to make?

Mr. Silkin: I have deliberately avoided the exact content of the regulations because I think it right to have the fullest possible consultations upon them with the interests concerned. When I feel that the interests have been properly consulted I may be willing to do so, but at the moment I need to hear them as well.

Mr. Skeet: We have read in the newspapers what the Minister proposes to


do. So that there may be further clarification, if he would be prepared to make a preliminary statement it would help the mineral interests.

Mr. Silkin: I understand that, but if the consultation document is more closely studied it will be seen that we need to consult the various interests on the regulations and on the form. I could not here and now give what I believe to be the form because, having listened to the representations, I might find the regulations differing slightly from what had originally been intended. We are trying to get regulations which give effect to the basis we are looking at. I can be accused of changing my mind. That is no great sin and no great worry. Many people do, only fools do not; but this is a case of getting it absolutely right, clear and working in the interests concerned.
The hon. Member for Melton always makes a reasoned and practical intervention in our affairs. I have to be wary of what I say to him. One of the issues he raised concerned the wicked bank manager. I suppose that the bank manager is to the house builder what the developer is to some of my hon. Friends. A certain amount of demonology comes into it. What the bank manager will want to see before lending money is planning permission, not something written either into a Bill or into regulations. Provided that a builder has planning permission—and he will be able to get planning permission for small developments which cannot be suspended—that should be good enough. He will own the land, he will get planning permission and it will be unsuspended. Even the demon bank manager should be perfectly happy with that.
7.45 p.m.
The right hon. Member for Crosby asked about a single house. He asked whether it was personal to the right hon. Member for Crosby or whether it was geographical. The answer is that it is geographical.

Mr. Graham Page: Is it also in time? Can one be building a number of houses at the same time and are they then all single houses?

Mr. Silkin: We are not talking about building but about excepted development and exempt development. Excepted development

is a single plot for a single house. That could be anywhere throughout the country, as the right hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Graham Page: Adjacent?

Mr. Silkin: I do not think that we shall be caught by that one. The right hon. Gentleman should be reasonably pleased. He should not chance his arm too much. I think that what the right hon. Gentleman meant was whether it was possible to get hold of a plot of land and subdivide it into several single plots. The answer to that is "No".

Mr. Lee: Provided that they are scattered around the country non-contiguously, theoretically there is no limit to the number of individual plots that qualify for the concession.

Mr. Silkin: Theoretically, there is no limit to the number of planning permissions for single plots which, if granted, would not be suspended.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I had thought that this was governed in part by the exemption in Clause 4(1), that is to say, an exemption would be given in respect of a dwelling which was built on land in the curtilage of a dwelling-house owned and occupied by an individual on 12th September 1974. That, I gather, has gone, but surely a person can have a plot contiguous to his land even if he cannot have one elsewhere, not contiguous?

Mr. Silkin: That has been overtaken by the single plot exception.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I appreciate that, but surely it may be next to or contiguous to the owner's land as well as in another part of the country?

Mr. Silkin: We should have to draw diagrams to see whether it could. I understand what the hon. and learned Gentleman is getting it and I can envisage circumstances in which it might, perfectly properly, but I think those will be very exceptional occasions.
In reply to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight our definition of "agriculture" is exactly the same as that of the Opposition and, therefore, includes horticulture. The exempt development schedule does not take horticulture generally out of exempt development.

Mr. Michael Morris: Amendment No. 338 in paragraph 2, as I read it, excepts buildings used for the purposes of market gardens, nursery gardens and timber yards. They are not included. The Minister has just said that they are exempt. I should be grateful for clarification.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I do not wish to press the Minister too hard on this matter. However, it raises complications, because some of us represent areas where very extensive glasshouses have been erected in recent years. It was the intention of people I had in mind to erect two or three more. These glasshouses are over 10,000 sq.ft. Will the Minister be so good as to write to me on this subject?

Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman is very kind to me, because I have to admit that there seems to be a slight difficulty here. It is only fair to accept that that is so. I will write to the hon. Gentleman. As the hon. Member for Melton has probably for the first or second time caught me out during the long stages of the Bill, I will write to him also. Perhaps just to be fair I will write to the hon. Member for Buckingham on this point and then we shall have it clear. I do not think that all of them are entitled to a letter after what happened earlier today.
There are three points in particular raised by the hon. Member for Aylesbury which need to be dealt with. First, Amendment No. 284 defines "development land" as
…land needed for relevant development within ten years".
It is the 10-year period that the hon. Gentleman is talking about. The justification for this is paragraph 25 of the White Paper. It is the maximum period over which it is sensible to plan ahead in land matters. This was what we stated in the White Paper.
The hon. Member drew attention to the words
in their opinion…suitable for development
in Amendment No. 293. These words are to ensure that decisions about development are in the hands of the planning authorities and the planning Ministers through confirmation of CPOs. After all, those are the people who will decide the matters on planning grounds. Other-

wise those who would decide them would be the courts. The courts are many things, but they are not qualified to decide planning matters, as has been accepted for about 60 years. It is precisely the same as planning permissions or enforcement notices.
The hon. Gentleman asked, finally, what would be the position about the acquisition of land for the building of a single dwelling-house. He knows that it can be acquired now under powers that existed before ever this Bill was thought of—for example, the Housing Act 1957 or the various Planning Acts. In future it could be included under the Clause 18 power in which land might be needed in the same way for, let us say, access to a development. We have made it clear that we would confirm compulsory purchase orders for development outside the duty, which is what single houses would be, only if the special circumstances are proved.
This has been a long debate and, as I said earlier, an interesting one. I hope that it has helped to clear the minds not only of hon. Members opposite but of my hon. Friends also. We have tried to get a sensible framework after listening to what others have had to say—some in the House, some in Committee, others who are interested outside the House. I hope that we have arrived at the right balance. On that basis I ask my hon. Friends not to accept new Clause 2 with which we started the debate.

Mr. Raison: With the leave of the House I should like to say that I believe that the Minister has failed entirely to meet us on our point about regulations or excepted development. His arguments were flimsy in the extreme, and I have no doubt that the House of Lords will seek to return to the matter.
Secondly, with regard to the letter from Sir Frederick Corfield the Minister said briefly that Sir Frederick had muddled the matter up, but he did not say how. I hope that he will add to his promises of correspondence one to send a letter to me with a copy to Sir Frederick, or perhaps the other way round, saying in what way Sir Frederick has muddled the matter up.

Mr. John Silkin: With great respect, I said that Sir Frederick had confused


"exempt" and "excepted" development.

Mr. Raison: In the text of his letter Sir Frederick specified clearly what he is talking about and which points in time.
Finally, although I recognise that the Minister has given some ground on the question of agriculture, I am very disappointed that he has not been able to

meet us on the additional point put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) and I must, therefore, ask my hon. Friends to press new Clause 2 to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 231, Noes 258.

Division No. 331.]
AYES
[7.56 p.m.


Aitken, Jonathan
Fry, Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Alison, Michael
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Mayhew, Patrick


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Awdry, Daniel
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Mills, Peter


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Glyn, Dr Alan
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Baker, Kenneth
Goodhew, Victor
Moate, Roger


Banks, Robert
Goodlad, Alastair
Molyneaux, James


Beith, A. J.
Gorst, John
Montgomery, Fergus


Bell, Ronald
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Morgan, Geraint


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Gray, Hamish
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Benyon, W.
Grieve, Percy
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Grist, Ian
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Biffen, John
Grylls, Michael
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hall, Sir John
Mudd, David


Body, Richard
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Neave, Airey


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nelson, Anthony


Bottomley, Peter
Hannam, John
Neubert, Michael


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Newton, Tony


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Nott, John


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hastings, Stephen
Onslow, Cranley


Brittan, Leon
Hawkins, Paul
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hayhoe, Barney
Page, John (Harrow West)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Henderson, Douglas
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Heseltine, Michael
Pardoe, John


Buck, Antony
Higgins, Terence L.
Parkinson, Cecil


Budgen, Nick
Hooson, Emlyn
Pattie, Geoffrey


Bulmer, Esmond
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Penhaligon, David


Burden, F. A.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Percival, Ian


Carlisle, Mark
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Pink, R. Bonner


Carr, Rt Hon Robert
Hunt, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hurd, Douglas
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Churchill, W. S.
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Raison, Timothy


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
James, David
Rathbone, Tim


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; w'df' d)
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jessel, Toby
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Clegg, Walter
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cockcroft, John
Jopling, Michael
Reid, George


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Cope, John
Kimball, Marcus
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Cordle, John H.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Costain, A. P.
Knox, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Crawford, Douglas
Lamont, Norman
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Critchley, Julian
Lane, David
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Crouch, David
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Crowder, F. P.
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Lawrence, Ivan
Sainsbury, Tim


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Lawson, Nigel
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Scott, Nicholas


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Drayson, Burnaby
Loyd, Ian
Shelton, William (Streatham)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Loveridge, John
Shepherd, Colin


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Shersby, Michael


Emery, Peter
MacCormick, Iain
Sims, Roger


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
McCrindle, Robert
Skeet, T. H. H.


Eyre, Reginald
Macfarlane, Neil
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
MacGregor, John
Speed, Keith


Fairgrieve, Russell
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Farr, John
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Sproat, Iain


Finsberg, Geoffrey
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Stainton, Keith


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Madel, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Marten, Neil
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mates, Michael
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Fox Marcus
Maude, Angus
Stokes, John


Freud, Clement
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Stradling Thomas, J.




Tapsell, Peter
van Straubenzee, W. R
Welsh, Andrew


Taylor, B. (Croydon NW)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Viggers, Peter
Wigley, Dafydd


Tebbit, Norman
Wakeham, John
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Winterton, Nicholas


Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Wall, Patrick
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Walters, Dennis



Thompson, George
Warren, Kenneth
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Townsend, Cyril D.
Weatherill, Bernard
Mr. Richard Luce and


Trotter, Neville
Wells, John
Mr. Fred Silvester.


Tugendhat, Christopher






NOES


Abse, Leo
Ennals, David
Luard, Evan


Allaun, Frank
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Anderson, Donald
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Armstrong, Ernest
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson


Ashley, Jack
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McCartney, Hugh


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Flannery, Martin
McElhone, Frank


Atkinson, Norman
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlingon)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Bates, Alf
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mackenzie, Gregor


Bean, R. E.
Ford, Ben
Mackintosh, John P.


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Forrester, John
Maclennan, Robert


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Bidwell, Sydney
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
McNamara, Kevin


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Freeson, Reginald
Madden, Max


Boardman, H.
George, Bruce
Magee, Bryan


Booth, Albert
Ginsburg, David
Mahon, Simon


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Gould, Bryan
Mallalieu, J. P. W


Bradley, Tom
Gourlay, Harry
Marks, Kenneth


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Graham, Ted
Marquand, David


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Buchan, Norman
Grocott, Bruce
Meacher, Michael


Buchanan, Richard
Hardy, Peter
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mikardo, Ian


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Millan, Bruce


Campbell, Ian
Hatton, Frank
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Canavan, Dennis
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)


Cant, R. B.
Heffer, Eric S.
Molloy, William


Carmichael, Neil
Hooley, Frank
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Carter, Ray
Horam, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Cartwright, John
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Moyle, Roland


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Clemitson, Ivor
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Newens, Stanley


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Noble, Mike


Cohen, Stanley
Hunter, Adam
Oakes, Gordon


Coleman, Donald
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Ogden, Eric


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
O'Halloran, Michael


Concannon, J. D.
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian


Conlan, Bernard
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Orbach, Maurice


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Janner, Greville
Ovenden, John


Corbett, Robin
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Owen, Dr David


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Padley, Walter


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Palmer, Arthur


Crawshaw, Richard
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Park, George


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
John, Brynmor
Parker, John


Cryer, Bob
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Pavitt, Laurie


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Pendry, Tom


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Perry, Ernest


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Phipps, Dr Colin


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Judd, Frank
Price, William (Rugby)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Kaufman, Gerald
Radice, Giles


Deakins, Eric
Kelley, Richard
Richardson, Miss Jo


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Delargy, Hugh
Kinnock, Neil
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Lambie, David
Roderick, Caerwyn


Dempsey, James
Lamborn, Harry
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Doig, Peter
Lamond, James
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Dormand, J. D.
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Rooker, J. W.


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Leadbitter, Ted
Roper, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lee, John
Rose, Paul B.


Dunn, James A.
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Rowlands, Ted


Eadie, Alex
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sandelson, Neville


Edelman, Maurice
Lipton, Marcus
Sedgemore, Brian


Edge, Geoff
Litterick, Tom
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Lomas, Kenneth
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Loyden, Eddie
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


English, Michael









Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Weitzman, David


Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Wellbeloved, James


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Sillars, James
Tierney, Sydney
White, James (Pollok)


Silverman, Julius
Tinn, James
Whitehead, Phillip


Skinner, Dennis
Tomlinson, John
Whitlock, William


Small, William
Torney, Tom
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Tuck, Raphael
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Snape, Peter
Urwin, T. W.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Spearing, Nigel
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Spriggs, Leslie
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Woof, Robert


Stallard, A. W.
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Stoddart, David
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Stott, Roger
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)



Strang, Gavin
Ward, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Watkins, David
Mr. James Hamilton and


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Watkinson, John
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Swain, Thomas
Weetch, Ken

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 8

COMPENSATION FOR WORKING FARMERS

"(1) This section shall apply to compensation in respect of every compulsory acquisition of an interest in land (whether under this or any other enactment) in pursuance of a notice to treat served on or after the second appointed day.

(2) The compensation payable to any working farmer displaced from any land acquired under this or any other enactment shall be such sum as will be equal to the loss or expense which such farmer sustains by reason of the resulting disturbance of his trade or business, or is put to by reason of having to quit agricultural land and by reason of any personal hardship which he sustains.

(3) In determining any sum payable under this section regard shall be had to the period for which the land might reasonably have been expected to be available for occupation by the person displaced, and the availability of other land suitable for occupation by him and for the reinstatement of his business.

(4) The provisions of this section shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any enactment of any rule of law relating to compensation for disturbance.

(5) For the purposes of this section, "working farmer" shall have the meaning assigned to it by Schedule 8 of the Finance Act 1975."—[Mr. Benyon.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Benyon: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This clause deals with compensation for working farmers. Throughout the discussions which have taken place during many years on the whole subject of compensation, including the Act passed by the last Government, the agricultural community has been pressing for equivalent reinstatement value to be paid when land is compulsorily purchased. In this

clause we are talking essentially of the time after the second appointed day. This may be many years ahead, and many of us hope that it will not arise, but in considering this Bill we must deal with the possibility.
In the existing situation of compensation, as hon. Members know when land is compulsorily purchased market value is paid, and this allows, in most cases, for at least equivalent reinstatement to take place. But more recently competition for the available land has increased. It is now very considerable and will increase still further after the Bill becomes law.
The basis set out in the new clause, on the other hand, would allow valuers to deal with each case on its merits and come to an agreement with the person whose land was being compulsorily purchased. There are good examples to be found in existing legislation elsewhere, in Holland and France in particular, which show how compensation can be dealt with in that way, and it is noteworthy that those countries have far less difficulty in the compulsory acquisition of land for use for community purposes—for roads, hospitals, or whatever it may be.
It is certainly my experience in local government—the same must be true of other hon. Members—that it is the penny-pinching attitude in relation to depriving someone of his livelihood that causes so much trouble. Let us be clear that we are talking of a man's livelihood. The situation is precisely the same as that which arises on the purchase of a shop or business. The land gives the farmer his livelihood, and when it is compulsorily purchased without his receiving reinstatement value his livelihood is at an end. Time and again, in my experience, this


has caused protracted negotiation, difficulty and frustration for both local government and the farming community.
It is not for me to smooth the Minister's path in the future, but, as we said so often in Committee, if only a more relaxed attitude could be taken on this question, both he and local government would be saved endless difficulty. I propose the new clause with no great hope of success, appreciating the nature of the advice which the Minister is receiving from his civil servants. I believe the purpose of the clause to be right, however, and, for the sake of the future, I urge that sympathetic consideration be given to it by the Government.

Mr. Walter Clegg: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) in this new clause. What is in the mind of the National Farmers' Union is that after the second appointed day land at the periphery of towns which would normally be development land will, in effect, have a lower market value than land well away from development, so that someone who is compensated purely in market terms because his land is at the edge of a town will, if he has to reinstate himself, find himself paying a higher price for a farm well away from developed areas and not likely to be developed or redeveloped. Thus, the situation will be completely the reverse of what happens now.
We are talking about a state of affairs which is still a long way off, but the point must be made in this debate.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. John Silkin: As the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) feared, and as I fear, too, I cannot support him on this occasion. In the first place, although, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I never make technical points, I must say that I am somewhat puzzled by the technical defect of this new clause. It refers to the working farmer. I assume that the hon. Gentleman refers there to the tenant or owner-occupier farmer rather than the agricultural landlord, but he defines the term "working farmer" by saying in subsection (5):
For the purposes of this section, 'working farmer' shall have the meaning assigned to it by Schedule 8 to the Finance Act 1975.

The trouble is that neither Schedule 8 nor any other provision of that Act defines "working farmer", so that we are starting somewhat on the wrong foot anyway. However, I think that I know what the hon. Gentleman means, and from his nod of agreement I see that I have it right, so I shall at once come to the more serious basis on which I must reject the new clause.
In any event, I do not regard this Bill as the appropriate vehicle for remedying defects, or alleged defects, in the compensation code. If those defects, or alleged defects, arise in the Land Compensation Act 1973, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to do so he can pursue them along those lines. No doubt they could be dealt with on that basis, but I do not think that that matter has relevance here.

Mr. Benyon: It is relevant because the Minister is himself altering the basis of compensation. Since he is doing that, it is surely valid to deal with the basis of compensation along these lines.

Mr. Silkin: I was just coming to that. Let us take the Clause 27 situation which, if one cares to put it so, changes the compensation code to current use value. What we are eliminating from agricultural land on that basis is the development value; the land retains its agricultural value, and as at that stage of the scheme all agricultural land will be on current use value, regardless of whether it is sold privately or to an authority, it seems to me that the position of a displaced farmer who wishes to reinstate himself elsewhere will be no different from what it is at present, save that everything will be done on a CUV basis.
Again, if the hon. Gentleman's proposals were written into the Bill, the additional benefits which his new clause would import would be quite unacceptable because—I put this quite frankly with reference to the working farmer as both the hon. Gentleman and I understand him; we both like him and want to help him—the working fanner would be made better off than any other category of person, and better off, indeed, than he would have been if his land had never been acquired, for it is unlikely that he would derive as much benefit as this from a private sale.
Let us take some examples. Subsection (3) read with subsection (2) appears to provide for compensation on a reinstatement basis to apply so that a working farmer would have reimbursed all his expenditure on reinstating himself elsewhere. Thus, one might have a tenant farmer getting the freehold cost of a replacement farm if he could not find a leasehold one.
In the first place, therefore, there would be a special provision for farmers which other members of the community would not have. Secondly, it would be a rather illogical basis, whereby the working farmer would be better off as a result of having his land acquired than he would be if it were not. Thirdly, as in the case I have suggested, a tenant farmer might get a freehold farm out of it.
It ought to be accepted that the Government have gone a long way in their assistance to farmers. Not only have we gone a long way to safeguard agricultural land; the situation will in fact be better, because there will not be the development of land at the expense of good agricultural land in the haphazard or frequent way which we have seen hitherto. The whole basis of land acquisition will then be planned.
Moreover, from the point of view of the working farmer, the man whom the hon. Member for Buckingham and his hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) want to protect, as I do also, it should be remembered that at the moment when the current use value world is entered under Clause 27, we shall be setting up the financial hardship tribunals. It is, I think, to those that the working farmer should go if he feels that he needs more than the current use value, if he is losing agricultural land and having to buy other land and feels that something special should apply.
On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw his new clause.

Mr. Benyon: In regard to the expression "working farmer" the provisions of the Finance Act provide for certain concessions, but I am still not satisfied with the Minister's explanation. Whereas a business, including goodwill, is compensated in full, this is not the case in regard to some Acts of Parliament. In

regard to the hardship tribunals the provision is not definite. We do not know exactly how it will operate. However, I am prepared to withdraw the motion because I am certain that the matter will be taken further in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

JOINT BOARDS

Mr. Clegg: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 9, at end insert—
'(4) Section 100 of the Local Government Act 1972 (admission of the public and Press) shall apply to Joint Boards constituted under this Act and to their committees'.
I move this amendment in order to make assurance doubly sure. We are anxious, as no doubt are the Government, that under the Bill's provisions the proceedings before joint boards should be under the full scrutiny of the Press. Therefore, we are asking that the public and the Press should be admitted to such meetings of joint boards as they are to meetings of local authorities.
I have been into the law on this matter and it seems to me that a schedule to the 1960 legislation makes provision in this respect. If the Minister can give an assurance that the Press will be admitted to these vital meetings, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Oakes: This is an occasion on which both sides of the House are united in agreement. We believe that it is essential that these boards should be under the scrutiny of the Press and that the Press should be allowed to attend their meetings.
The hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) is right in his research. As I said in Committee, this matter is covered by the general law, and for that reason, and for that reason alone, we do not want specific reference made to that matter in this legislation, because it is not necessary. If we were to take that step we would have to include the provision in every Act of Parliament. Therefore, I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance for which he asks, and I assure him that


the situation is covered by the general law.

Mr. Clegg: In view of the Minister's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Oakes: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 19, after 'section', insert:
'may make such incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient and, in particular'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this amendment, it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 4, in page 3, line 24, leave out paragraph (b).
No. 5, in page 3, line 26, at end insert:
'other than in a substantive manner'.
Government Amendment No. 6.
No. 7, in page 3, line 29, at end insert:
'(d) may not contain any provision the effect of which would be to confer upon the joint boards greater powers than those exercisable by the constituent authorities acting separately under this or any other enactment'.

Mr. Oakes: Hon. Members who took part in the Committee proceedings will remember that this matter was raised by the Opposition, I then gave an undertaking that I would look at the matter.
The Opposition were worried that the powers were too wide. They were particularly worried about the fact that a joint board might have powers which a constituent authority did not possess. I have examined the situation and, in consequence, we are limiting the powers given. This limitation is achieved by Government Amendments Nos. 3 and 6, and therefore it would appear that Amendments Nos. 5 and 7 are no longer necessary, because we have adequately covered the point.
However, I am afraid that I must ask the House to resist Amendment No. 4 because there is no power in the Local Government Act 1972 for a joint board to exercise management functions. The power in Clause 2(5)(b) is necessary for that reason. I think the Opposition spokesman will agree that this is not a major point, but I am sure he will also

agree that we have covered the point dealt with by the Opposition in Committee.

Mr. Rossi: I am grateful for the Minister's reply. In Committee we were most concerned about this provision. It appeared to us that the wording gave the Secretary of State the extraordinary power to amend by regulation not only this Bill but any other legislation. We felt that that was a function for the House to consider in respect of legislation rather than that it should be a matter for regulation.
The point seems to have been conceded by the Government. They have tabled these amendments, which appear to be acceptable. They make clear that any regulation must be ancillary or subsidiary to the main provision. We appreciate that from time to time regulations are required to tidy up minor matters. To that extent we gratefully accept the Government amendment, which appears to meet our very real objections to the clause. Therefore, we shall not proceed further with our amendment.

Mr. Graham Page: I am grateful to the Minister for examining this matter carefully and for tabling amendments, but there are still doubts as to the extent to which an order under subsection (5) can be made. An order under Government Amendment No. 3 may make
such incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary provision as appear…to be necessary or expedient…
That surely means something supplemental to the order creating the joint board.
We look back to Clause 2(1) to discover what the order can do in appointing a joint board. It is not right to say that the order cannot give the joint board any powers which the constituent authorities do not possess. Subsection (1) is wide. The order constitutes certain areas as districts
for the purposes specified in the order".
There is no limitation on the powers which can be given to the joint board. There is little limitation on what the Minister can do to alter the law relating to the acquisition of land under subsection (5)(b).
It was with that matter in mind that we sought to place limitations to the effect that if it were decided to seek to alter the law on the acquisition of land, it should not be in a substantive manner—in other words, it should not deal with compensation or valuation of property and the reasons for compulsory acquisition, and so on. It may be necessary to make certain procedural alterations to adapt the law to the joint boards but not to alter the basis of acquisition of land. We felt that some further limitation was required.
Therefore, it is not right to say that the order could not give the joint board any power that was not possessed by constituent authorities. I think that it could, and that it might extend a long way in respect of supplementary provisions which may appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Oakes: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman feels that the Government amendments do not limit this provision in the way that he desires. That was our intention, except with regard to Amendment No. 4. Perhaps I was trying to get on too quickly and did not sufficiently explain why we believe that Amendment No. 4 should be resisted, but merely hinted at it.
The need to include modification of other legislation really arises from the fact that the Bill does not include any new powers for local authorities to manage and dispose of land. Land which they acquire under the Bill will be managed and disposed of by virtue of the general powers in the Local Government Act. That is why Clause 43 operates by amending that Act. Clearly, any joint board would need power to manage and dispose of land, and it might therefore be necessary to modify the 1972 Act to give it the necessary power.
It is really on that very fine and innocent point that we wish to retain the power in Clause 2(5)(b)—not for any ulterior or sinister motive. I said in Committee that no Secretary of State would use this provision in the way the Opposition feared, but to make assurance doubly sure, under Amendments Nos. 3 and 6 we are making it quite certain that no Secretary of State could do so. I hope

that that explanation satisfies the right hon. Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 6, in page 3, leave out lines 27 to 29.—[Mr. Oakes.]

Clause 3

MEANING OF RELEVANT DEVELOPMENT

Amendment made: No. 261, in page 3, line 35, leave out from 'means' to end of line 38 and insert:
'any development except—

(a) development of any class specified in Schedule (Exempt development) to this Act,
(b) development consisting exclusively of the building of a single dwelling-house, and
(c) development of such class or classes as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State by regulations.

(1A) The reference in subsection (1) above to the building of a single dwelling-house includes a reference to the construction or laying out of any garage, outhouse, garden, yard, court, forecourt, or other appurtenance for occupation with, and for the purposes of, a single dwelling-house.'.—[Mr. Oakes.]

Clause 4

EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN DWELLING-HOUSES

Amendment made: No. 262, in page 4, line 1, leave out Clause 4.—[Mr. Oakes.]

Clause 5

NOTICES CLAIMING EXEMPTION

Amendment made: No. 263, in page 5, line 27, leave out Clause 5.—[Mr. Oakes.]

Clause 6

EXPRESSIONS RELATING TO LAND AND PLANNING LAW

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in page 6, line 16, at end insert 'Scottish'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we shall take at the same time the following Government amendments: Nos. 94, 96, 117, 222, 223 and 232.

Mr. Ewing: The purpose is largely of a technical nature. It is to achieve consistency in reference to the Scottish enactments in the Bill. The effect of these amendments is to substitute for the references to the Act of 1947 references to the "Scottish Act of 1947", and this term is to be construed as a reference to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947 by virtue of Clause 6(1). This conforms with the use of the term "Scottish Act of 1972" throughout the Bill which by virtue of Clause 6(1) is to be construed as a reference to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972.

Mr. Crawford: I am delighted that once again Westminster has realised that north of the Border there is a separate nation with a separate legal system. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State, who is also responsible in some measure for devolution, will carry this matter to its logical conclusion and ensure that very soon we have a separate Scottish nation along with a separate Scottish legal system.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I shall not detain the House for long on the reference made by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford). This matter has nothing to do with the debate on devolution. We are seeking to avoid confusion in reference to existing Scottish Acts enacted in 1947 and 1972. Without the clarification that we introduced in the amendment there would be some confusion. No doubt the reference that the hon. Gentleman has just made will be debated with much greater heat at a later date both inside and outside the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Oakes: I beg to move Amendment No. 264, in page 6, line 21, at end insert—
'"agriculture" has the meaning assigned to it by section 290 of the Act of 1971 or section 275 of the Scottish Act of 1972'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Government Amendments Nos. 265, 267, 268, 339, 269, 298 and 300.

Mr. Oakes: These are a series of drafting amendments. Their purpose is close to any lawyer's heart in that they put separate definitions into Clause 6 so that they can be found together. Amendment No. 264 and the second part of Amend-

ments Nos. 268 and 339 add phrases not previously included to various definitions of planning. Agriculture, the general development order and minerals are now referred to in various Government amendments and will be defined in Clause 6, where we seek to put them all together.

Mr. Graham Page: I refer to Amendment No. 268, where the general development order is defined. We are relying greatly on the general development order as regards exempt development in the new schedule which we have already debated, which we shall come to vote on at a later stage. The position is that the Secretary of State could alter the statute—namely, the schedule to the Bill when it becomes an Act—by altering the general development order. The right hon. Gentleman could alter the exemptions. He could extend them or decrease them by altering the general development order. It is that order to which the Bill refers. I believe that I am correct in that interpretation.
In Amendment No. 269 we have the definition of "open space". I wish that the Minister would put the Bill in that open space, which includes
land which is a disused burial ground".

Mr. Oakes: I note what the right hon. Gentleman has said. In these amendments we are putting the various definitions into Clause 6. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the general development order and disused burial grounds. I cannot answer that point off the cuff, but I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Rossi: I thank the Under-Secretary of State for the help that he has given on this matter. The amendments cover one of the technical criticisms which we made in Committee. We pointed out that there were defects scattered throughout the Bill that made the Bill difficult to follow.
The only point that the hon. Gentleman has not met us on is that Clause 6 should be transferred to the beginning or end of the Bill. Those are normally the places to which people look for definitions and interpretations. We are shifting Clause 17 somewhere else, and I wonder whether in another place consideration might be given to shifting Clause 6. To move it to the beginning or end of the Bill would facilitate professional people


when making reference to this legislation. It would assist them to have the definitions collected in such a way rather than in the middle of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 265, in page 6, line 24, at end insert—
'"buildings or works" includes waste materials, refuse and other matters deposited on land, and references to the erection or construction of buildings or works shall be construed accordingly,
common" includes any land subject to be enclosed under the Inclosure Acts 1845 to 1882, and any town or village green'.

No. 266, in page 7, leave out lines 1 to 3 and insert—
'"development land" has the meaning given by section 17 of this Act,
development order" has the meaning assigned to it by section 24 of the Act of 1971 or section 21 of the Scottish Act of 1972'.

No. 267, in page 7, line 9, at end insert—
'"erection", in relation to buildings, includes extension, alteration and re-erection'.

No. 268, in page 7, line 14, at end insert—
'"fuel or field garden allotment" means any allotment set out as a fuel allotment, or a field garden allotment, under an Inclosure Act, "general development order" means a development order made as a general order applicable (subject to such exceptions as may be specified therein) to all land in England and Wales, or to all land in Scotland'.—[Mr. Oakes.]

Mr. Rossi: I beg to move Amendment No. 30, in page 7, line 25 at end insert—
and shall include the right under a contract to acquire such an interest for the purpose of developing the land".
This is an amendment to the definition as to what is a material interest in land. The clause defines a material interest as the freehold interest in a piece of land or a lease with not less than seven years to run. What we are saying in the amendment, and this is a legal matter, is that those interests should include a binding right to acquire such an interest in land. I hope that this is one of those technical amendments which the right hon. Gentleman will be able to accept without difficulty.

Mr. John Silkin: I am afraid that I have to disappoint the hon. Member. When this matter was discussed in Committee my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said that in most cases where the phrase "material interest" was used

in the Bill it would be inappropriate to extend the provision to building agreements. The Committee amendment which produced a similar effect to the present one was not, therefore, acceptable.
However, my hon. Friend undertook to consider the places where the words "material interest" appeared in the Bill to see whether there was a need for a more limited amendment. We have done this, and it has become clear that an amendment is needed to the prior right provisions in Schedule 3(2). This amendment is tabled as Amendment No. 287. Similarly, some of the amendments for charities refer specifically to contracts to acquire interests. Apart from these we did not consider that any further amendment was needed.
The argument is often used by members of the Opposition—I have used it myself—"If the amendment is not actually needed does it matter if we put it in? It will at least cover the difficult situation." The trouble with that argument is that the courts do not so interpret it. The courts look at language if any matter comes before them and ask why such a provision is in a measure. They say that it clearly must mean something different. Because of that, and with some regret, I am afraid that I must resist the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: No. 339, in page 7, line 25, at end insert:
'"minerals" has the meaning assigned to it by section 290 of the Act of 1971 or section 275 of the Scottish Act of 1972'.;

No. 269, in line 27, at end insert:
'"open space" means any land laid out as a public garden or used for the purposes of public recreation, or land which is a disused burial ground'.;

No. 270, in line 33, at end insert:
'(2A) Subject to subsection (2B) below, a material interest in land shall be treated as outstanding for the purposes of this Act if—

(a) it is owned otherwise than by an authority, a local or new town authority, a parish or community council or, in Scotland, the council of a district within the area of a general planning authority, and
(b) no such body as is mentioned in paragraph (a) above has entered into a binding contract for its acquisition.

(2B) A material interest in land shall not be treated as outstanding for the purposes of this Act if—



(a) during the period beginning with the 12th September 1974 and ending with the time in question, it has not been owned otherwise than by a charity, or
(b) it is of a description specified in an order made under this subsection by the Secretary of State.

(2C) For the purposes of subsection (2B) above, a material interest in land shall not be treated as having been owned otherwise than by a charity at any time if, at that time, a charity had entered into a binding contract for its acquisition; and any order made under that subsection shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. John Silkin.]

8.45 p.m.

Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 271, in page 7, line 41, at end insert—
'(3A) In this Act any reference to the time when planning permission is or was granted, in the case of planning permission granted on an appeal, is a reference to the time of the decision appealed against or, in the case of planning permission granted on an appeal in the circumstances mentioned in section 37 of the Act of 1971 or section 34 of the Scottish Act of 1972, a reference to the time when in accordance with that section notification of the decision is or was deemed to have been received.'.
The effect of the amendment is that where a planning permission is granted on an appeal against a refusal or a deemed refusal, it shall be treated as having been granted on the date of that refusal or deemed refusal.
There are various places in the Bill where the date of a grant of planning permission is quite crucial, especially in that section covered by Clauses 21, 22 and 23. Where such permission is granted on an appeal, the date of the grant is, for the purposes of the planning Act, regarded as being the date of the refusal or deemed refusal. However, this principle would not apply for the purposes of this Bill unless we made specific provision for it. The amendment, therefore, effectively imports the wording in Section 290(4) of the 1971 Act to bring the Bill into line with the existing planning procedures.

Mr. Graham Page: I am grateful to the Minister. I think that the Opposition's Amendment No. 407 did this in a much shorter fashion by inserting some words in Section 290 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. The right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised if I quote that Act or put a slight amendment into it in a neater way in Section 290(4)

which does the same thing as his longer amendment. But if he chooses the longer version, I am quite happy and shall not bother about the later amendment.

Mr. Rossi: Some time ago, in answer to a Written Question, the Secretary of State dealt with planning permissions granted before 12th September 1974. In that same answer, the right hon. Gentleman also referred to the situation of planning refusals. He said that the whole matter would be dealt with by administrative means. He also made a comment about refusals, which is virtually on all fours with this amendment. As we now have part of the right hon. Gentleman's proposition dealt with by a Written Answer, to the effect that he would deal with it by administrative means, and he is now proposing to deal with it in the statute, whereas the remainder of his Written Answer is not being dealt with in the statute, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will clarify the situation so that people are not confused between the two issues which arise.

Mr. John Silkin: The position remains as the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) has stated it. The dividing line comes on 12th September, with the exception of the excepted development regulations. To that extent, they will have a corresponding provision.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7

STATUTORY UNDERTAKERS

Mr. Rossi: I beg to move Amendment No. 32, in page 8, line 25 at end insert:
'ejusdem generis with those referred to in the foregoing paragraph of this subsection'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment, it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 367, in page 8, line 25, at end insert:
'which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament'.
Government Amendment No. 272.

Mr. Rossi: The object of this amendment is to ensure that the bodies being dealt with by Clause 7 are kept within the confines of the list set out in the clause. Clause 7 seeks to set out a list


of statutory undertakers. It names them specifically as bodies to which very special provisions and exemptions under the Bill apply. Subsection (1)(c) goes on to say that the Secretary of State may make an order adding to that list
any other authority, body or undertakers".
Those other authorities, bodies or undertakers will then fall within the provisions and obtain the benefits of Clause 7.
We are seeking in our amendment simply to say that the other authorities, bodies or undertakers which may be added to the list by the Secretary of State shall be of the same nature in law as those already in the list, and, therefore, he cannot by regulation bring in other bodies that may be different in nature and legality from those that it is intended basically that Clause 7 shall relate to. That is the objective of Amendment No. 32.
I believe that I should leave the next Amendment, No. 367, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), because his name appears in support of the amendment.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I believe that the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) fairly put the argument in support of this amendment. However, the effect of the amendment would be to restrict the authorities, bodies or undertakers which may be specified in an order under subsection (1)(c) to any of the same nature as those specified in paragraph (b)—that is, the British Airports Authority, the Civil Aviation Authority, the National Coal Board, the Post Office and any other authority, body or undertakers—which, by virtue of any enactment, are to be treated as statutory undertakers for any of the purposes of the planning Acts.
I remind the House that a similar Opposition amendment was debated during the ninth sitting of the Committee as one of a group aimed no doubt at eliciting information about the bodies which the Government propose to specify as statutory undertakers by order under Clause 7. If I remember correctly, the Opposition's main concern was that the power enabled the Secretary of State an unfettered discretion to specify any body whatsoever as statutory undertakers for the purposes of the Bill and thus conferred on them, without any opportunity for parliamentary objection, the exemp-

tions from the scheme enjoyed by such undertakers—namely, exemption of operational land from the duty and the suspension of planning permission.
As was explained in the debate, formal application of the ejusdem generis concept would be unsatisfactory because in certain cases it would never be free from doubt—this point must be borne in mind by the hon. Member for Hornsey—whether the particular body belonged to the same class or classes to which it fell to be compared. Nevertheless., it is intended that the order-making power should be reserved for such bodies as would be equated with statutory undertakers and whose development land could appropriately be brought within the concept of operational land, the primary feature of which is that the land in question should, in respect of its nature and situation, be comparable with land which is used, or in which interests are held, for the purpose of the carrying on of statutory undertakings, rather than with land in general.
Although, for the reason given, the Government are unable to accept the present amendment, they have accepted that orders should be subject to a form of parliamentary procedure. This will probably meet the point about to be made by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). This will be achieved by Government Amendment No. 272, which will add a new subsection (6) providing that any order made under Clause 7 shall be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
Perhaps I could take the liberty of replying to the right hon. Member for Crosby, even before he makes his speech, and save him some valuable time. The right hon. Gentleman's amendment would introduce the negative resolution procedure for orders under Clause 7(1)(c) specifying authorities, bodies or undertakers as statutory undertakers for the purposes of the Bill. I have no doubt that this amendment has been tabled to ensure that the Government's undertaking given in Committee, that the question of a form of parliamentary procedure for orders under Clause 7(1)(c) would be looked into, could be pursued.
The Government's Amendment No. 272 provides for the same form of procedure as is proposed in the right hon. Gentleman's amendment. Indeed, we have been


more generous with the right hon. Gentleman than we are entitled to be. Amendment No. 272 goes a little further by providing that all three types of orders which may be made under Clause 7 shall be subject to the negative resolution procedure. I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman rises to speak it will be to utter those very welcome words asking the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment.
Finally, the effect of Amendment No. 272, dealing with Clause 7 which empowers the Secretary of State by order under subsection (1)(c) to specify any authorities, bodies or undertakers as statutory undertakers for the purposes of the Bill, is to make orders under all three powers subject to the negative resolution procedure. As I have already mentioned, in the debate on Clause 7 in Committee the Opposition expressed concern that the Secretary of State should have power to specify any authority, body or undertaker as a statutory undertaker and thus confer on it the special exemption accorded to a statutory undertaker under the Bill without any opportunity for parliamentary question as to why the body in question is considered to qualify for special treatment.
The Government were asked for and gave an undertaking that this matter would be looked into. Having done so, we have concluded that there is no objection to the negative resolution procedure in this instance. The amendment, as I said, goes further by providing that all orders under the subsection shall be subject to that procedure, including orders defining operational land in relation to particular undertakers and orders naming the appropriate Minister responsible for their affairs in relation to supplemental provisions in Schedule 4 where that question is not settled by reference to the planning Acts.
I hope that in what I have said I have not only reassured the right hon. Member for Crosby sufficiently for him to withdraw his amendment, but convinced the House that Amendment No. 32 ought not to be accepted.

Mr. Graham Page: I thank the Under-Secretary of State for his generosity. I think that he has put my amendment No. 367 in the right place. I readily accept that it is far better as Amendment

No. 272 than as Amendment No. 367. It goes some of the way to meet the objection of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) about paragraph (c) to subsection (1) of Clause 7. If the House had an opportunity, as I think we said in Committee, to discuss whether women's institutes or townswomen's guilds should be called statutory undertakers, or if a private burial company were designated a statutory undertaker, we might have an opportunity of putting the Government right on this. But, as right hon. and hon. Members know, the procedure in this House for the negative resolution is not at all satisfactory. We may put down a Prayer against one of these orders and it may never come before us on the Floor of the House or even upstairs in the appropriate Committee. Therefore, one is hesitant in giving the Minister such a wide power as is included in paragraph (c).
I cannot see why paragraph (c) is necessary at all, and if the Minister is not prepared to accept the limitations on it in Amendment No. 32 I hope that in another place consideration will be given to taking it out altogether and leaving the wide scope of paragraph (b). After all, that paragraph includes
any other authority, body or undertakers which by virtue of any enactment are to be treated as statutory undertakers for any of the purposes of the Act of 1971
that is the Town and Country Act 1971.
This is a wide scope, and I merely lay down this marker, that if my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey does not wish at this stage to press Amendment No. 32 I hope that in another place our debates on this subject will be read and consideration will be given to taking paragraph (c) out altogether.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Peter Rees: I beg to move Amendment No. 260, in page 8, line 35, at end insert:
'and includes lands in respect of which restrictions as to the user of those lands are imposed by virtue of any enactment for the benefit of statutory undertakers in the carrying on of their undertaking'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Amendment No. 259, in Schedule 4, page 60, line 48, at end insert:
'or shall authorise the overriding of any restriction as to the user of land enjoyed by


statutory undertakers by virtue of any enactment'.

Mr. Rees: Amendment No. 259 is in similar vein to Amendment No. 260. Both amendments are designed to enlarge the protection that the Bill affords to statutory undertakers. I have in mind particularly water companies, but right hon. and hon. Members may feel that the position of other statutory undertakers needs to be considered. The Government have already conceded that they deserve particular treatment. However, the protection afforded them by Clause 7, in my view, and, I hope, in the view of others, does not go far enough, and I should like to bring to the attention of the Government the kind of case that I have in mind.
There is operating in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Folkstone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) the Folkestone and District Water Company. Like many water companies, it owns considerable tracts of land from which it extracts water, but it has certain rights of access and of extraction, and also the right to prevent the pollution of its catchment area. These rights are sometimes embodied in contracts, and sometimes in the statutes and orders under which these statutory undertakers operate. In the case of the Folkestone and District Water Company, it is the Folkestone Water Act 1949, and I believe that there is a subsequent order which was given the force of law in 1949.
Again, to give the example of the Folkestone and District Water Company, there is a large catchment area around two of its principal wells which it is crucial should not be polluted. Therefore, over the years the company has acquired certain rights and restrictive covenants which are embodied in the Act and which prevent the pollution of the company's catchment area.
The Bill as drawn certainly provides some protection for statutory undertakings. After all, it exempts local authorities from the duty to bring into public ownership their operational land. But the definition of operational land in Clause 7 is narrowly drawn and the purpose of the amendment is to extend the definition to cover these rights. The Minister may say that they are covered by the use of the word "interest" in subsection (2). My advice is that that would not be so.

As I said, subsection (3) does not go as wide as the statutory undertakers would like.
Amendment No. 259 is in similar vein. It would prevent a local authority from overriding certain easements and rights which are of particular importance for statutory undertakers, particularly water companies.
This is not a mere technical point. I am sure that my experience is paralleled by that of many other hon. Members. There is considerable concern in the country at the steep rise in water rates. If these rates, easements and interests of water companies can be overriden, it must inevitably add to the cost of extracting water. That will considerably exercise the ratepayers in East Kent. I am sure that the Minister has applied himself to these amendments and will see that they are not merely a lawyer's exercise but have a direct bearing on those who pay water rates. I hope that the House will look on them with particular sympathy.

Mr. Harry Ewing: When I first saw these amendments, I realised that they had probably been promoted by the water authority to which the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) referred. It is right and proper that he should bring to our notice the fears and worries of water authorities. I hope that I shall be able to reassure the hon. and learned Gentleman and also the water authorities and to allay some of the fears that they obviously have about this legislation.
Amendment No. 260 would extend the definition of operational land of statutory undertakers in Clause 7(2) to include land which the undertakers did not necessarily own but which was subject to restrictions on its use which operated for the benefit of the undertaking. Amendment No. 259 would prevent the carrying out of development of land acquired under the Bill if such development would conflict with any statutory restrictions as to the user of the land enjoyed by statutory undertakers.
Gathering grounds, which normally form catchment areas of water, are often protected from development by restrictive covenants incorporated into local Acts or orders under the Water Acts, under which the owner of the land agrees, for


example, not to erect buildings on the land or to do anything which might pollute subsoil water. The land will normally be farming land, and since it will be land in which an interest is held by the water undertakers, it will not be "operational land" as defined in subsection (2).
It has been represented to my right hon. Friend's Department that the powers in the Bill—particularly the general duty imposed under Clause 17, the acquisition powers under Clause 18, together with the modified compulsory purchase procedures in Schedule 4, and the powers in paragraph 11 of Schedule 4—might operate to the detriment of the interests of water undertakers and their statutory obligations.
One fear is that the owner of land that is subject to a restrictive covenant operating for the benefit of a water undertaking could make a planning application with a view to defeating the covenant by means of acquisition by the local authority. This fear is based on the assumption that the authority would be prepared to grant planning permission for development of the land and would be prepared to buy it. But under Clause 17 and Schedule 3 the general duty of authorities to consider the desirability of bringing land into development is coupled with a requirement that in exercising their planning control functions authorities are to take into account the needs and obligations of statutory undertakers.
Furthermore, as water-gathering grounds will be unlikely to have been indicated for any major development in the development plan—if any such indication had been mooted the water authority would certainly have opposed it—any proposal for significant development of such land would require to be given publicity, and the water authority would be able at that time to voice its objections.
The water authorities' apprehensions also appear to indicate a lack of confidence that authorities will give due weight to the interests of water authorities in carrying out their duties and exercising their powers under the Bill. But those interests are also the interests of the consumer within the community the authority serves and must enter into

the consideration of any development proposal which would affect those interests. This is recognised formally by paragraph 1 of Schedule 3.
In all fairness to the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal and his hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), I should say that this is not an unimportant consideration. The authority will have to consider the interests of the consumer. The consumer has a vital interest in a ready and adequate supply of water. It would be an irresponsible authority that did not consider the interests of the consumer and this aspect of planning. In this alone there lies a reassurance for the water authorities, and the fears that they have expressed to both the Department of the Environment and to Members representing their interests have proved to be unfounded.
Concern has also been expressed that land in respect of which covenants have been taken would be acquired under the Bill without the necessity of a public inquiry, but with the amendments which have been made an inquiry into a compulsory purchase order to which the owners of the land object will be obligatory where the status of the land as development land has not previously been established after an inquiry. There is an added safeguard here for the water authorities because the inquiry into a compulsory purchase order will be obligatory.
There are objections in principle to the amendment to Clause 7 in that it would conflict with the long-established concept of "operational land", which requires that it must be land in which an interest is held for the purpose of carrying on the undertaking.
Furthermore, the purpose of the provisions of the Bill relating to the operational land of statutory undertakers is designed to enable them to carry out development—and it is important to recognise this—for the purpose of their undertakings without having to go through the machinery of the land scheme. The Bill does not, and is not intended to, take such land outside the scope of the powers of acquisition, and the extension of the definition of operational land as suggested would not afford any statutory protection whatever to land over


which statutory undertakers have the benefit of statutory covenants. That is not to say that the authorities should regard such land as potential development land without full consideration of all the planning and operational factors, which is implicit in Schedule 3.
9.15 p.m.
There are three main points on the amendment to paragraph 11 of Schedule 4. First, paragraph 11 merely imports a corresponding provision from the Town and Country Planning Act—Section 128—and there is no reason why this provision, in a Bill which the Government have repeatedly stressed is planning based, should be any different from that in the Town and Country Planning Act.
Secondly, paragraph 11 applies only where planning permission for the development of land has been granted, and the same considerations will apply in respect of the grant of planning permission where paragraph 11 is proposed to be exercised as apply to land acquired under the Town and Country Planning Act, where Section 128 of that Act is the relevant provision.
Thirdly, paragraph 11 and Section 128 of the 1971 Act would not in any event authorise any interference with statutory rights. Any question of amending this provision should, therefore, be considered in relation to planning legislation and not the Bill.
I have gone to considerable lengths and taken some time to try to reassure the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal and his hon. Friend that the water undertakings which have expressed fears have no ground on which to worry. We do not regard as unimportant the fears that have been expressed. That is the main reason why I have taken time to explain in some detail the guarantees, assurances and protections that water undertakings have.
I repeat that the main guarantee that water undertakings have is the responsibility on the authorities to take into account the consumer whom they represent and the interests of that consumer. In that lies the protection that the water undertakings are seeking.
Against that background I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw the amendment. If he feels that he cannot

withdraw it, I shall have to ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to resist it.

Mr. Costain: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) for raising this matter, which affects both our constituencies. The supply of water in our area is very scarce and some of it comes from wells which are easily polluted, particularly those adjoining the Dungeness power station.
It would be helpful if we could have a further assurance that the claims and the privileges which the water company has had to obtain to enable it to keep the water supply pure could be registered. Public inquiries often fail to produce the full results we expect from them. Is there any way in which the local authority could be informed and in which there could be registration of the interests involved?

Mr. Ewing: If the water undertakers read the remarks I have just made they will obtain the assurances they seek. It is in the interests of the Government, the local authorities and everyone that water undertakings should expand and make sure that an adequate and pure water supply is provided. Nothing in the Bill will prevent that from happening. I have gone some way to give every assurance I possibly can, and I am sure that the water undertakings will accept the assurances I have given.

Mr. Peter Rees: The Minister has gone sympathetically and fully into the case that I advanced in moving the amendment. He has dazzled the House with a display of legal expertise of which I am not absolutely certain that I was aware that he was capable until this moment. I pay tribute to the thoroughness with which he has mastered his brief.
As the hon. Gentleman recognised the validity of the case that I advanced I should have thought that he could have accepted the amendment. However, I know the pride that great Departments have, how they will never recognise that an amendment moved by a mere back bencher can have any validity and is always shot through with legal imperfections. This is true of Departments under Conservative and Labour stewardship.
However, I do not propose to press the amendments to a Division. I hope that the local authorities and the inspectors who may be concerned with such matters on future occasions will be able to read the points made by the Minister. However, if it should transpire on a later occasion that they have not heeded the points made by the Minister, I know that he will allow us to return, perhaps on a Private Members' Bill if need be, and raise the matter again. Subject to that, I do not think that I should be justified in detaining the House further. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I beg to move Amendment No. 33, in page 9, line 13 leave out
'land of statutory undertakers is operational land'
and insert:
'any land is operational land of statutory undertakers, or would be such land if it were used or held by statutory undertakers for the purposes covered by the permission'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we shall discuss Amendment No. 175, in page 23, line 14, Clause 24, leave out
'the operational land of statutory undertakers'
and insert:
'land which is operational land of statutory undertakers, or would be such land if it were used or held by statutory undertakers for the purposes covered by the permission.'.

Mr. Ewing: Amendment No. 33, to Clause 7, which is consequential upon the second amendment, provides that, if any question arises under the Bill whether land would be operational land of statutory undertakers if it were used or held by statutory undertakers for the purposes covered by planning permission, that question is to be determined by the appropriate Minister in relation to those undertakers—for example, by the Secretary of State for Energy where the undertaker concerned is the National Coal Board.
The purpose of the second and main amendment, to Clause 24, is to disapply the provisions for the suspension of planning permission where planning permission is granted for development which, if the land were used or held by statutory undertakers for the purposes covered by

the permission, would be operational land of those undertakers.
Paragraph 53 of the White Paper expressed the intention that statutory undertakers would be able to acquire and develop land needed for their statutory functions without the intervention of local authorities. The Bill as it stands does not fully carry out that intention in respect of acquiring land.
Although Clauses 20(3)(d) and 24(9)(b) exclude operational land of statutory undertakers from the duty and from the suspension of planning permission, there is no cover at all for the interests of statutory undertakers who propose to acquire land and develop it for operational purposes if planning permission is granted. Although there are other considerations which must be satisfied, land cannot be operational land unless either it is used for the purposes of carrying on a statutory undertaking or an interest in it is held for those purposes.
It is entirely reasonable that statutory undertakers should not acquire land for operational purposes until planning permission has been granted, but unless they have done so the planning permission will be suspended until such time as the authority have acquired the land or abandoned their power to acquire it, because the land would not be operational land when the planning permission was granted.
The effect of the amendment to Clause 24(9) is that Clauses 21 to 23—suspension of planning permission—shall not apply, not only to planning permission granted in respect of land which is already operational land, which is covered by paragraph (b) of the subsection, but also where the land would be operational land if it were used or held by statutory undertakers for the purposes of the development for which the planning permission was granted.
For example, the Post Office proposes to erect a telephone exchange on a piece of land which the owner is willing to sell. After the relevant rate it applies for planning permission for the development, which is granted.
Without the amendment the planning permission is automatically suspended until such time as the authority has acquired all material interests in the land and then disposed of a material interest for the purpose of the development,


whereas with the amendment the planning permission is not suspended and the Post Office is free to acquire the land and construct the telephone exchange in accordance with the permission.
The amendments do not take away the power of authorities to acquire operational land, or land which upon acquisition for the proposed development would become operational land. They merely prevent the provisions of the Bill from obstructing the carrying out of operational development for which planning permission has been granted.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 272, in page 9, line 16, at end insert:
'(6) An order made under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Harry Ewing.]

Clause 8

OTHER INTERPRETATION

Amendment made: No. 273, in page 9, leave out lines 18 and 19 and insert:
'"charity" has the same meaning as in section 360 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 and as respects Scotland "charitable" shall be construed as if it were contained in that Act;
community council" means a community council in Wales'.—[Mr. Harry Ewing.])

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alec Jones): I beg to move Amendment No. 274, in page 9, line 29, at end insert:
'"parish council" includes a parish meeting and the parish trustees of a parish'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Amendment No. 130, in Clause 20, page 19, line 15, at end insert:
'or the parish trustees of a parish in England'.

Mr. Jones: Hon. Members will appreciate that this is not exactly an earth-shattering amendment, but nevertheless it is one which is essential because in Clauses 6 and 20 we refer to a parish council and, having referred to it, we ought to give a definition of what we mean by it. In the circumstances, I feel that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) might be prepared to withdraw his Amendment No. 130, since that amendment becomes unnecessary, being superseded by the very complicated amendment which I have just moved.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Alec Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 275, in page 9, line 30, leave out 'or particulars in'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Amendment No. 351, in Clause 55, page 47, line 6, leave out
'and particulars to be contained in'.

Mr. Jones: I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will soon appreciate that my colleagues are giving me all the complicated amendments to deal with!
Since in this Bill we are taking powers to prescribe the forms, one can hardly prescribe the forms without actually prescribing the contents or the particulars of those forms. This is merely a common sense amendment.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with this one quite so easily. Surely, if one prescribes a form, one does not necessarily prescribe all the particulars to go into that form. The form may set out certain questions, asking for name and address or whatever it may be, and one may prescribe the shape of the form to be delivered, but it may be necessary for the Secretary of State on occasion to prescribe the particulars to be provided in a document.
I cannot for the life of me see why, once having put this requirement into the clause and given the Minister power to prescribe documents under Clause 55, we should now think it necessary to take the words out. They were perfectly clear as they stood in the Bill, giving the Minister power to prescribe the form and to prescribe the particulars to go into that form. If he prescribes the form, that does not necessarily mean that he prescribes the information which he wants in the form. The Bill was all right as it stood. I should be only too pleased to cut a lot out of the Bill, but not this.

Mr. Alec Jones: I am surprised that my attempts to simplify matters have encountered such disapproval from the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). The advice I am given is that it is hardly possible to prescribe a form without prescribing the particulars in that form, and that therefore these words are not necessary. Hence, we propose to leave out the reference to the prescription of the actual particulars in the form.


It is the phrase "or particulars in" that we propose to remove.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9

THE APPOINTED DAYS, ETC.

Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 276, in page 10, leave out line 5 and insert 'and'.

Mr. Speaker: We shall consider at the same time the following Government amendments: Nos. 36, 38 to 41, 127, 128, 132, 168 and 172.

Mr. Silkin: Clause 20 at present provides for the Secretary of State to make an order placing a duty on the authorities concerned to acquire all land in the area designated by the order which is needed for the types of relevant development designated in the order. Clause 23 provides that any planning permission for designated relevant development granted on or after the commencement date, which is the date specified in an order under Clause 9 and which cannot be before a relevant date for the same area, shall be suspended until such time as the land has been acquired by an authority and made available by it for the purposes of that development.
Although the Bill was drafted to provide for the possibility of separate dates for applying Clause 20—the full duty clause—and Clause 23—the prohibition—in an area, I have always recognised that in practice it would usually be sensible to operate them together and to make them apply to the same designated relevant development.
When this matter was discussed in Committee, the Opposition argued that the whole of this drafting could have been greatly simplified. I have thought a great deal about this, and as a result I accept the force of the Opposition's argument. The effect of the amendments will be that a relevant date order under Clause 20 will automatically bring in the provisions of Clause 23, and thus the concept of a separate commencement date disappears, as does the need for a separate commencement date order. I hope that the House will accept this as a better and simpler way to deal with the matter.

Mr. Rossi: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for meeting the point which we made in Committee. We spent a lot of time trying to understand what was meant by "commencement date", and the definition in the Bill seemed rather to add to the complication and to confound us all. Now, however, since the Minister is dealing with the matter in this way, he has rendered it far more simple, although no more acceptable. Nevertheless, we accept his amendment on that basis.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 36, in page 10, leave out lines 8 to 13.—[Mr. John Silkin.]

Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 277, in page 10, line 15, leave out from "all" to end of line 16 and insert:
relevant development has been designated, by orders under section 20 of this Act, in all areas of Great Britain".

Mr. Speaker: We shall take at the same time Opposition Amendment No. 37, in page 10, line 15, leave out from "when" to end of line 16 and insert: "commencement dates have been appointed in respect of all areas in Great Britain".

Mr. Silkin: These two amendments are designed to achieve much the same purpose but I think the Opposition will recognise that ours goes a little further and is slightly more effective. This is only because it is related to the new circumstances of the amended framework of the Bill.
Amendment No. 277 provides that the second appointed day bringing in the move to current use value cannot be appointed before orders under Clause 20 are defined in all areas in Great Britain in relation to all relevant development. I think that the Opposition's point in Committee that there should be a universal bringing-in of the provisions in relation to relevant development in the new circumstances was right, and I hope that the House will accept that the amendment meets that point.

Mr. Rossi: Again we are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for meeting a point we made in Committee. As I understand it, the second appointed day under the Bill must now be postponed


until orders have been made under Clause 20 in respect of every local authority area in the country and of all classes of relevant development.
One of the matters troubling us was that there could be an order for one class of relevant development in an area of a minimal kind, but now the whole shooting match must be before we have the second appointed day.

Mr. John Silkin: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct.

Mr. Budgen: Does this mean that the date of the second appointed day will be further postponed? In Committee we were anxious lest the Minister should try to accelerate the date of the second appointed day because, technically, the position—although it was not his intention—was that, provided that in all areas there was some relevant development, even if it were only the designation of a golf course, for example, the second appointed day could be brought in. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his concession but I hope that it is not just about technicalities—and legal technicalities at that—but means that there is a real change of heart and that he expects that the second appointed day will be a long time hence.

Mr. John Silkin: I do not want to anticipate an exact date for the second appointed day. I think it is sufficient that we all know how the scheme is to work. Some local authorities will have the duty imposed on them by a Clause 20 order ahead of others. I hope and trust, contrary to what the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) says, that everyone will move at enormous speed compatible with their enhanced experience and expertise. I have always felt that this would happen. The Bill was designed so that we could move at the correct speed and in the right way. I hope, therefore, that the House will be satisfied and will approve the Government amendment.

Mr. Graham Page: I am sorry if I am still in a little doubt. Is it still the case that under Clause 20 separate orders can be made for separate areas and for separate types of relevant and designated development? If that is so, there is no

change there and it is only when all these orders all over the country for all developments have been made that the second appointed day will come in, but we could still get piecemeal orders before that, although when they are made the authorities will be under no obligation to purchase for current use value. Am I correct?

Mr. John Silkin: The situation is that there may be a number of authorities to which Clause 20 orders relate and to which "relevant development" may apply, and there may be others where that situation will not apply. So long as that situation arises, various Chancellors of the Exchequer might act in different ways. One might operate on current use value and another on a percentage of DLT. Therefore, that would be an impracticable arrangement.

Mr. Rossi: In that case I shall not press the point.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 368, in page 10, line 17, leave out first 'The' and insert 'an'.
Mr. Speaker: With this amendment we may also take Amendment No. 369, in page 10, line 17, after 'appointing' insert 'the first or'.

Mr. Page: The amendment seeks to add to Clause 9(5) an order appointing the first appointed day as requiring procedure in this House. At present that subsection requires the order appointing the second appointed day to be put before the House in draft before it is made, and the draft will have to be approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
We have just discussed the second appointed day, but the order appointing the first appointed day will also be of considerable importance. Schedule 1, on page 49 of the Bill, sets out what will happen on the first appointed day. It brings into operation several provisions, namely, Section 17 dealing with development land and the general duties of authorities; Section 18, power to acquire development land; Section 21 and 22, planning permission for relevant development; Section 25, disposal notification areas; and Section 50, reserve powers.
These are very important matters, and we want to know whether local authorities will be ready to carry out these powers—for example, the provisions in Sections 25 and 26 in respect of disposal notification areas. We believe that it would be right to bring the order appointing the first appointed day before the House by means of a draft so that it can be considered by the House and so that we may be able to apply the same procedure as that relating to an order dealing with the second appointed day.

Mr. Michael Latham: I support my right hon. Friend on this significant amendment. In view of the relationship between the first appointed day in the Community Land Bill and the development of land taxation legislation, if there is to be such a thing, it is important that these provisions should be meshed closely together.
One of the purposes of discussing such orders is to enable the House to decide whether, say, an order bringing in the first appointed day under the Community Land Bill should take place in advance of an order for the first appointed day under the development of land taxation legislation. As the Bill at present stands there is no such procedure, and the Minister can make the first appointed day order under the Community Land Bill straight after Royal Assent, assuming that it is obtained. It is surely better that if the Minister is to decide on two first appointed days, as it were, they should fall on 6th April the following year, which is the beginning of the next financial year. It is a mistake to have two appointed days on different occasions. One of the advantages of the amendment is that it will allow hon. Members on both sides of the House to express their opinions when it is desired to bring legislation into operation.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. John Silkin: In this procedure I followed the normal procedure of the House. It is a well-precedented procedure, and I believe it is correct in its formulation. The order appointing the first appointed day, which is when the transitional arrangements under the scheme come into force, will be by virtue of the provision of Clause 55(2) and will

be made by statutory instrument. It is usual for orders bringing the provision of a Bill into effect not to be subject to parliamentary procedure. I do not think that there is any good reason for parting from that precedent.
We could have written a specific date into the Bill. We could have specified Royal Assent, but I think it is right to follow precedent and to follow the normal procedure that is employed.
The hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) talked about the in tandem in its Latin sense—namely, the application of the development land tax. If any case of an appointed day were required to be debated separately by Parliament such a debate would obviously take place, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is on to a very important point. All that the first appointed day procedure does is to follow the legislation which we are now debating and which very shortly, as everyone in the House hopes, believes, trusts and prays, will receive Royal Assent.
As regards the second appointed day, I am sure we all hope and pray that that will be soon. There can be argument and discussion about the day on which that comes in that there are many intervening matters. There can be argument and discussion as to whether it is the right moment to bring it in. That is why the second appointed day is subject to order and why the first appointed day is not.

Mr. Page: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the order appointing the first appointed day is not the commencement order of a Bill? He and I know perfectly well that a commencement order is by statutory instrument and that no parliamentary procedure is laid before the House. However, these matters bring into operation certain duties on the part of local authorities when another Bill will be going through involving the development land tax and when everyone is very concerned about the expenditure of public money. I think that this is a matter that should come before the House as a substantive order and not merely as a commencement order.

Mr. Silkin: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point. I do not think that this is so very different from a commencement date in any event. I have considered the precedents and I have been


assured this is the way in which Parliament has always chosen to proceed.

Mr. Michael Latham: As the right hon. Gentleman appears to be resisting my right hon. Friend's amendment, will he tell the House whether he intends to make his commencement order before the introduction of the land acquisition and management schemes? If the target dates are not met, will the right hon. Gentleman wait until they are?

Mr. Silkin: It would not be the intention to do that. I am giving away no great secret to the House or anyone else if I say that I would be thinking about the first appointed day during the course of next year.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: No. 38, in page 10, line 24, leave out '(c) the commencement date'.—[Mr. Oakes.]

Schedule 1

COMMENCEMENT DATES, ETC.

Amendments made: No. 39, in page 49, leave out lines 19 and 20.

No. 40, in page 49, leave out lines 23 to 25.

No. 41, in page 49, leave out lines 41 to 45.—[Mr. Oakes.]

Clause 10

THE AUTHORITY

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to move Amendments No. 42, in page 10, line 34, at end insert:
'who shall subject to section 15(5) below, either—

(a) lay a copy of each direction given under this subsection before each House of Parliament within 28 days of giving it; or
(b) lay a copy later but lay with it a statement of the reason why a copy was not laid within 28 days'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we can also discuss Government Amendment No. 279, and Amendments No. 54, in Clause 15, page 13, line 39, leave out 'national'; No. 55: after 'interest', insert 'of public security'; No. 58, in page 14, line 4, at end insert—
'(5) If a report so laid sets out a direction under section 10(3) above, a copy of which

has not been laid in accordance with that subsection (as amended), a statement of the reason why the copy was not so laid shall be annexed to the Agency's report by the Secretary of State and the said subsection (3) shall not apply to the direction'.

Mr. Roberts: The purpose of this amendment and Amendment No. 58 is clearly to ensure that this House is kept well informed about the directions given by the Secretary of State to the Land Authority. As the Bill stands we would not know what directions have been given until the publication of the annual report—long after the event to which a direction may relate. This amendment and the consequential amendment bring the Land Authority into line with the Welsh Development Agency. The text of these amendments is taken from the measure establishing that agency.
If the requirement of laying before Parliament within 28 days a copy of each direction given to the agency or laying a copy later with a statement explaining why it was not laid earlier is acceptable to the Government in connection with the agency, why is it not acceptable in connection with the Land Authority? The authority is a similar body. It consists of half a dozen people nominated by the Secretary of State and directly responsible to him. Four will be appointed after consultation with the local authority organisations but they will be the Secretary of State's men, responsible to him rather than to their electors, if they are elected representatives, for what they do as members of the Authority.
In defending this nominated body the Under-Secretary spoke rather vaguely of the Government's devolution proposals but ended by saying that there was a strong democratic case for ensuring that the Authority was directly answerable to the Secretary of State who is responsible to this House. We wish to ensure that the Secretary of State is answerable, and it is difficult to see how we can do so unless we know what directions he is giving to the Authority.
There is a further point. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) pointed out in Committee, only the Land Authority for Wales has to comply with directions given by the Secretary of State under Clause 10(3). The directions that have to be complied with are unspecified and this subsection may well be unconstitutional. Elsewhere in the Bill


directions have to be taken into account by the various Authorities concerned, including the Land Authority for Wales. There is an ambiguity here. We asked that it should be cleared up but the Government do not appear to have done anything about it. That is all the more reason why the Secretary of State should lay copies of his directions before the House so that we can see precisely what is his relationship with the Land Authority.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) suggested in Committee that we should not have to wait for the annual report of the Authority before learning what directions had been given. The Under-Secretary said that that was a fair point and that the proceedings of the Authority would be open to the public and the Press. I do not see why this House should have to rely on the Press for information of this kind when it could be laid formally before the House as is the case with the Welsh Development Agency. Some of us think that this House is perhaps too dependent on the media for information which the Government ought to supply direct.
The purpose of Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 is to substitute a more acceptable description of the power of the Secretary of State to limit the publication of directions and their substance in the annual report. This is amply covered by Government Amendment No. 279.

Mr. Alec Jones: I must advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject Amendment No. 42, and Amendment No. 58, which is related to it. The amendment seems to be motivated by some degree of suspicion concerning the giving of directions by my right hon. Friend to the Land Authority for Wales. I start in the good old-fashioned way by saying that there are good precedents for this. Such precedents can be found in the Maplin Development Act 1973 and the Water Act 1973. I know what a passionate supporter of the Water Act the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) was. I merely indicate the stable from which these directions emanate. But I accept that Parliament has a legitimate interest in the directions given by the Secretary of State under Clause 10(3).
The hon. Gentleman referred to the annual report. It is in the annual report that Parliament will find the best means of examining the directions which have been made by my right hon. Friend. I make that point because it is one special reason why Amendment No. 42 cannot be accepted. On reflection, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree. The annual report, however, will not include directions which the Secretary of State has notified the Authority should not be included, because it would be against the national interest or national security to do so. The Opposition amendment makes no provision for excluding from laying even directions whose publication would be contrary to national security, so that on that specific ground the Government cannot accept Amendment No. 42. However, that is not the only reason, and I do not find it very easy to accept the hon. Gentleman's words about the Government not knowing what directions were laid. The hon. Gentleman knows the people of Wales a little better than that. I am sure that, in view of the fact that these meetings are open to the Press and the public, everyone who has an atom of interest in these matters will know of them. Far from there being any slight on Parliament by having the information straight from these public open meetings, it means that directions which have been laid will be made known to Members of Parliament far sooner than if we accept any other means of doing so. I am satisfied that as soon as hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies became aware of any general or limited directions laid in this manner, they would soon find the means of bringing them to the attention of this House.
Amendment No. 58 is related to this, and I have given the reason why we cannot accept the first part of it. As regards the second part, we believe that there is no merit in the proposal that the Land Authority should not be bound by a direction under Clause 10(3) which has not been presented to Parliament. In our view this would not be in the public interest. But I agree that there is a parliamentary interest in this matter. Nevertheless the primary interest will be most felt by those directly involved and concerned with the transactions and the discussion.
Directions from the Secretary of State will help the community land scheme to operate smoothly and for the benefit of Wales as a whole, and it is quite feasible that in the event of a dispute between the Land Authority and a local authority a direction would be one means by which such a dispute could be resolved satisfactorily.
I am glad to hear that Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 are not to be moved and that Amendment 279 is acceptable to the Opposition. The Government have introduced Amendment No. 279 to meet the criticism originally made by the Opposition.
I ask my hon. Friends to vote against Amendment Nos. 42 and 58 and, when the time is appropriate, to support Amendment No. 279.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I ask the hon. Gentleman to clear up the point which I made about Amendments Nos. 42 and 58. The substance is to be found in the Welsh Development Agency Bill. Although the hon. Gentleman referred to the Water Act and to the Maplin Development Act, the

fact is that the Welsh Development Agency Bill is this Government's own product and a far later one. The Minister may think that it is a better example to follow.

Mr. Alec Jones: I do not really see that—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Community Land Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Coleman.]
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Jones: It seems to me that the Land Authority for Wales is a very different organisation from the Welsh Development Agency. The Welsh Development Agency has such a wide range of different powers that I do not think it can be compared with this specific agency whose primary concern will be the acquisition or management of land in Wales.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 2

THE LAND AUTHORITY FOR WALES

Mr. Nicholas Edwards (Pembroke): I beg to move Amendment No. 43, in page 50, line 11, leave out 'nine' and insert 'ten'.

Mr. Speaker: With this amendment we may discuss the following Amendments:
No. 44, in page 50, line 16, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert:
'(2) Five offices as members of the Authority shall be held by members chosen by local authorities in Wales'.
No. 377, in page 50, leave out lines 16 to 19 and insert:
'(2) Three offices as members of the Authority shall be held by members appointed by the Council consisting of representatives of district councils in Wales known as the Council for the Principality and two offices as members of the Authority shall be held by members appointed by the Committee consisting of representatives of county councils in Wales known as the Welsh Counties Committee.'
No. 378, in page 50, line 31, at end insert:
'(2A) A member appointed pursuant to paragraph 2 (2) above shall cease to be a member if he ceases to be a member of a local authority.'

Mr. Edwards: All these amendments deal with the nature of the membership of the Land Authority for Wales. In England the functions laid down in the Bill are to be carried out by elected local authorities and in Wales by a creature of the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) has just reminded the House that, whereas in England the local authorities are to be allowed a certain amount of discretion as to the way in which they carry out these directives, in Wales the Land Authority has to comply with such directions, and that is a fairly rigid term. Not only does the authority have to comply with directives, but it differs fundamentally from the responsible authorities in England because it is not elected. It is selected by the Secretary of State. He picks its members and gives it orders. In Wales the local authorities are apparently not trusted by the Secretary of State. Instead, we are to have this Authority for which no proper explanation has been given.
If we are to have such an Authority—our efforts to get rid of it unfortunately

have been defeated—at least we must make some effort to break a shackle here or there. We must try at least to ensure that its membership is of good quality, representative of various interests and ready to stand up for itself.
The Secretary of State claims that by giving him dictatorial powers we in fact ensure parliamentary control because he is ultimately responsible to Parliament. However, despite what the Minister said in response to the previous batch of amendments, I remain unconvinced. The Minister knows full well that by the time general directives have been reported to Parliament and debated, in many cases the damage has been done. I believe that even more so is that true if we are to have to go through the extraordinary procedure of relying on the Press for information which should be given directly to Parliament. If we are concerned about the way in which individual decisions are taken on a day-to-day basis, if we are to have some element of democratic influence over the day-to-day work of the authority, it cannot arise from the person or body to whom the authority is ultimately responsible. It can be achieved only by having as its members independently-minded individuals, some of whom I believe should be conscious of the fact that they have a responsibility to electors.
The first matter that concerns us is the size of the authority. Originally it was to be a minimum of four which certainly would have been inadequate, particularly bearing in mind that there is to be a minimum of four representatives from the local authorities. The Government have accepted our request to increase the minimum to six, and we are grateful to them for that. Now we press for an increase in the maximum number permitted.
I fully understand the arguments advanced by Ministers against large authorities, but no one could say that an authority of 10 is excessive. I should have preferred something a little larger than that. A larger membership would make possible the inclusion of people with real knowledge relevant to the problem. In the Welsh Development Agency Bill there is the provision that the members should have had experience or shown capacity in various relevant


areas. We ought to have scope here for the inclusion of members with experience in areas related to land planning or with knowledge of those most affected—for example, the agriculture industry.
It is because we do not want to squeeze out these special interests that we propose an increase in the size of the Authority. But at the same time we wish to ensure that at least half the members come from elected local authorities, and that is the purpose of Amendment No. 44. This is the vital link with local democracy, the local authorities, which, after all, will have to act as agents for the Authority and will probably have to recruit a considerable number of additional staff.
But we go further. In Amendment No. 44 we suggest that the local authorities should have the power to select or nominate their representatives. I suspect that the Minister will reply that he is interested in their potential ability as members of the Land Authority rather than their skills or popularity as local representatives. It is insulting to the local authorities in Wales to say not only that they may not do the job in Wales which the Government believe can be done by local authorities in England, but that they cannot even nominate their own representatives.
It is perfectly possible to have an Authority which is both efficient and nominated by a variety of organisations. Precedents have been quoted today. One precedent of which I have particular knowledge and experience is the Milford Conservancy Board which has a worldwide reputation for efficiency in the extremely responsible job that it does. The representatives of the oil companies, the pilots, the local authorities, and so on, are not picked by the Minister after consultation. The 1958 Act is refreshing in its wording when we consider what we have had to look at recently. The Act states,
The chairman and 10 other members of the board shall be appointed as follows; that is to say".
It then lists them: one by the Admiralty, one by Trinity House, one by the National Parks Commission, three by the County Council of Pembroke, and so on. It has been altered recently because we have had a new structure of local government, but

the principle is there. Why cannot we have a clause like that on this occasion? Why should the Secretary of State or his civil servants be considered the best judges of character or ability?
Amendment No. 377 takes the matter a stage further. It suggests which local government organisations should make the nominations. It is inspired in part by the Association of District Councils. The wording of the amendment is based on the Local Government Administration (Representative Body for Wales) Order 1974 under which the Council for the Principality and the Welsh Counties Committee are specifically recognised as the bodies to be consulted for the purpose of appointing the representative body for Wales which receives reports from the Local Commissioner for Administration.
The district councils are, of course, housing authorities responsible for local plans and development control, many of which have proven records in the development of industrial estates. We give them credit for that. Their functions, therefore, qualify them best as the agents in this instance, and they are more likely to have the staff and experience to carry out the majority of the agency rôles for the Land Authority. There are about three times as many of them as there are county councils. For this reason, a ratio of three to two is proposed.
I understand that the Welsh Office, faced by this argument from the district councils, has talked about the need for flexibility, that splendid word that means anything or nothing, but the association and the Council for the Principality reply, quite reasonably, that they see no need for flexibility and wonder why there should be this reluctance to amend the Bill. If the Council for the Prinicipality and the Welsh Counties Committee, in which all 37 districts and eight counties are represented, are not necessarily to be consulted, which other bodies, they ask, does the Secretary of State regard as representing local authorities in Wales? Those are reasonable questions to which we shall expect answers.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 378 which is also inspired by the Association of District Councils, and that is simple and straightforward. The members appointed to represent local government will be councillors, and therefore it seems


logical that if they cease to be councillors they should cease also to be members of the Agency.
We said that we object to the concept of a Land Authority for Wales but if we are to have one we believe that it should have greater independence and more democratic content than the Government have chosen to give it, and that is the purpose of our amendments.

Mr. Alec Jones: I have to advise my hon. Friends that we must resist these amendments which have been so persuasively put forward by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards). The hon. Gentleman always starts by talking about this body being a creature of the Secretary of State for Wales. I remind him that there are several creatures of previous Secretaries of State for Wales roaming round Wales now and they do not all meet with approval from the people of Wales. This creature is not such a bad one. At least half of its members are to be drawn from local authorities.
I do not believe that it is a question of the Government or my right hon. Friend being unwilling to trust the local authorities in Wales. It is a question of having regard to the size of Wales and to the belief that we can adopt a uniform pattern in this land process for the whole of Wales that will be to the benefit of those who live there. I accept that there can be two views on this, but it is nonsense to talk all the time about who can and who cannot be trusted in this matter.
I accept that we could have an argument about whether there should be nine or 10 members. If we gave the hon. Gentleman 10 he would put down an amendment asking for 11. If we had suggested 11 he would have gone on to 12. There is no magic number. What we have tried to ensure is that we have have a body with sufficient people on it to do the job effectively, but not too many people to clutter up the whole process which we believe to be essential for the people of Wales.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands), who was then the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, began the discussions on this Bill he met the members of the Welsh local authority associations. That was in March this year, and at that meeting it was indicated that the new Authority was

likely to consist of a chairman and eight members and that local authorities would provide about half those members. At that time the idea that half the members would be from local authorities seemed generally to satisfy all local authority associations in Wales. I am not saying that nine, 10, 11 or 12 is the perfect number, but I do not think that the hon. Member for Pembroke can provide any greater justification for the 10 he has suggested than one could for any other number.
The question of how many representatives should be drawn from local authorities is of considerable importance. Nevertheless, we have to take into account the facts as they are, and we know that if we are talking about having a Land Authority for Wales working in harmonious relationship with both county and district authorities it is bound to cause resentment among some local authority representatives if they feel that others are being better treated than themselves. I think that our arrangement for having the same number from counties and districts is the right way of dealing with this problem. I accept and note the part that district councils have played in housing, and so on, but county councils have played an equally important part in other spheres of life in Wales. So I believe that by having the same number from county councils and district councils, we have dealt effectively with that point.
10.15 p.m.
However, when it comes to the method of selection, it is a vital question whether the choice should be for the Secretary of State or for the local authorities. I would give three reasons that it is better that the provision in the Bill for the choice to be made by the Secretary of State should prevail. First it will help to create unity within the Authority. If the amendments were accepted, some members of the Authority would be selected, nominated or chosen by the local authorities and some by my right hon. Friends and in the working of the organisation there would be a tendency towards division between local authority representatives and the rest. There is bound to be such a risk in any case, but with the hon. Gentleman's recommendations, the possibility of a rift would be even greater.
Second, there are implications for the status and position of any Secretary of


State as an appointing authority. The amendment would require him to become a mere cypher rubber-stamping the appointment of people nominated by others. This is not desirable, particularly when the Secretary of State is answer-able to Parliament for the way in which the Land Authority carries out its functions. If the appointment of half the members is taken out of his hands, his personal authority is weakened and by implication Parliament will lose because the field over which the Secretary of State is answerable to Parliament will be restricted.
The third reason is the most telling. The amendment would constrain the Secretary of State's freedom to appoint other members of the Authority. The Secretary of State is anxious to achieve various balances—geographical and between ages and sexes and the needs of different interests. To do so, he must retain the power to nominate these people so as to give him the right flexibility.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) was right about Milford Haven in the past, but he knows that that is not the present position, that three local authorities have to be consulted about filling two vacancies, so one is bound to be disappointed. It is the normal practice to obtain more nominations than there are places to fill to give a degree of selection.
We do not object to Amendment No. 378 as such, but we intend that the point should be covered by the letters of appointment issued in accordance with paragraph 4 of Schedule 2—that a member of the Authority shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of his appointment. The assurance that a local authority member would be required to stand down if he ceased to be a member of the local authority was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil in Committee on 12th June. We do not believe it necessary to write that into the Bill and we think that the provisions which we have outlined for the number and composition of the Land Authority will give us the body best suited to the needs of our people.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Alec Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 45, in page 51, line 6, leave out 'chairman or'.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that it will be convenient to discuss at the same time Government Amendment No. 46 and Amendment No. 47, in Page 51, line 7, at end insert
'provided always that any one person may not hold the offices of chairman and secretary concurrently for a period exceeding three months and then only as a temporary expedient during a casual vacancy occuring in one or other of such offices'.

Mr. Jones: I shall be recommending the acceptance of Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 and the rejection of Amendment No. 47.
The Government amendment has been introduced to meet a point made by a number of Opposition Members during consideration of the Bill in Committee. Although the Opposition did not object to the principle in Amendment No. 297, which was moved by the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts), of flexibility and economy which is at present embodied in paragraph 4, the argument was made that there was a potential danger in allowing an individual to hold, even for a short period until other arrangements could be made, the two key appointments of chairman and secretary.
The hon. Gentleman quite rightly drew our attention to that point. My predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands), undertook to consider the points raised without commitment and to return to them on Report with a suitable amendment. We have accepted the point made by the hon. Gentleman that there is sufficient substance in the points which were then argued in Committee to justify a modification of the provisions of the paragraph to ensure that one person should not at the same time be both chairman and secretary. The amendment will achieve this while maintaining full flexibility. A person may be an official other than a secretary and a member, including chairman or deputy chairman, and the secretary can hold any member's position other than chairman's, while the chairman may hold the post of any official other than the secretary. The chairman should not at the same time be deputy chairman.
We tried to take fully into account the point made by the hon. Gentleman. We agreed that the key appointments of chairman and secretary should not be held by the same person. We would concede that the other point is of some importance, namely, that there is bound to be some degree of flexibility in this.
The Opposition amendment is not now consistent with the argument that they put forward in Committee when they saw the danger of any one person being both secretary and chairman even for a short time. The Opposition originally argued that the Government should go all the way on this matter but I would hope that they would be prepared to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: The amendment of the Secretary of State meets the points that we were making in Committee about the danger inherent in the Bill as it stands that the authority might become almost a one-man band. Some hon. Members may believe that the best committee is a committee of two with one member away sick. However, it would not be advisable to carry that principle too far when setting up statutory bodies.
We will not move our amendment in view of the fact that the points are covered by the Government's amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made:

No. 46, in page 51, line 6, at end insert 'and a person holding the office of chairman of the Authority may hold any other office except that of secretary or deputy chairman'.—[Mr. Alec Jones.]

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to move Amendment No. 48, in page 52, line 33, at end insert 'provided always that nothing in this paragraph shall be taken to make valid any transaction which would otherwise be void or voidable'.
The aim of this amendment is to ensure that in the event of actionable conduct on the part of any member of the authority, such as involvement in fraud, an action could be brought and the relevant transactions of the authority made void in consequence of a conviction.
This amendment was suggested off the cuff by my right hon. Friend the Mem- 
ber for Crosby (Mr. Page) when we were discussing the point in Committee. Some hon. Members expressed doubts concerning the effect of the seemingly sweeping exoneration given in the relevant paragraph to the proceedings of the authority.
It was explained to us that the paragraph was meant to protect the innocent third party in any transaction involving the authority, but certain questions arose to which satisfactory answers were not then available. The Minister promised to consider the amendment before us and we eagerly await the Government's considered reply.

Mr. Alec Jones: I assure the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) that the fears he has expressed and similar fears which were mentioned in Committee are completely unfounded. We discussed this in Committee and it was accepted by some Opposition Members that the paragraph as it stood did not deal with issues of fraud and corruption.
To quote the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) its intention was to ensure
that a third party who deals with the Authority does not need to investigate whether every member is free from taint, is well appointed or has an interest in the affairs".—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 17th June 1975; c. 1058.]
The right hon. Gentleman went on to suggest that although he did not see the need for the words which are now proposed we as a Government might consider putting them in to satisfy his hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) undertook to consider the proposal.
We have considered the proposal and have taken advice in the matter. I wrote to the right hon. Member for Crosby and the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) on 16th July explaining to them that the paragraph would not limit the powers of the courts under Section 173 of the Law of Property Act 1925 and that our legal advice was that an amendment on the lines suggested was not necessary. I said in that letter:
We have now considered this point and I am advised that nothing in the new paragraph would limit the powers of the courts under section 173 of the Law of Property Act 1925 which in subsection (1) provides that '…every voluntary disposition of land made with intent to defraud a subsequent


purchaser is voidable at the instance of that purchaser'".
I might have been prepared to add the words to ease the minds of Opposition Members, but I had to take the advice that, in general, in drafting, unnecessary words should not be added just for the avoidance of doubt when no doubt exists. Such drafting would have the unfortunate effect if creating doubt elsewhere where similar words have not been added.
I understand the fears expressed by the hon. Gentleman. I hope that what I have said will assure him that there is no reason for such an amendment and that his fears are not valid.

Mr. Roberts: In view of the Minister's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11

THE INITIAL DEBT

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Morris): I beg to move Amendment No. 278, in page 11, line 15, leave out '£750,000' and insert '£100,000'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): With this we are taking Amendment No. 49, leave out '£750,000' and insert '£500,000'.

Mr. Morris: The clause authorises an initial debt of £750,000 to the Authority. My amendment seeks to reduce it £100,000. The Opposition Amendment No. 49 seeks to reduce it to £500,000, so I have gone further than have the Opposition.
The clause envisages the incurring of expenditure on salaries, rent and so on before the Land Authority is established under this measure. The initial debt was calculated at the beginning of 1975 and only a tentative suggestion was incorporated in the Bill. It is now clear that the debt would be considerably less. No staff will be appointed before the Royal Assent and the main contingency is for accommodation. The figure I propose would certainly meet the needs of the Land Authority.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I am tempted to begin by saying, "What a fall was there.

my countryman", or whatever the appropriate quotation is. This is a very significant reduction. In Committee, we pressed that there should be a reduction to £7,500, but that was a probing amendment and it seems to have found its mark. We were very concerned and still are concerned, that a figure of the size of £750,000 could find its way into the Bill and that there should be a substitution at this late stage.
It has thrown considerable doubt on the Government's method of estimating their financial requirements under the Bill. I am sorry that another amendment which suggested a reduction in the long-term debt of between £40 million and £60 million is not open for discussion, but perhaps we may return to that point at a later stage of the Bill. The Secretary of State is at least four ahead of us. He has beaten our amendment asking for a reduction to £500,000 by requesting a reduction to £100,000. We would not want, therefore, to press ahead with our proposal.

Mr. Budgen: Before the Front Benches finish their mutual congratulations, I hope that the Secretary of State will be a little more frank. In calculating the number of purchases required by the Land Authority of Wales, and in making various financial calculations, one does not expect civil servants to be as far out as the difference between £100,000 and £750,000. A few bits of furniture here, a few pension rights there, and a few land purchases elsewhere do not account for the enormous difference.
Why does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman bite the bullet and be honest and say that the exceptions and exemptions that have been announced are substantial, and that the area of land upon which this monstrous Bill will bite has been substantially reduced? Why does he not say that the Government are at last aware of the enormous size of the borrowing requirement, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) and I drew attention in Committee, and that they are trying to cut expenditure? To pretend that there has been some small error in estimating by civil servants is so much hooey, and I do not think that anyone can accept it without bursting into laughter.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13

GUARANTEES

Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 52, in page 12, line 30, leave out 'possible' and insert 'practicable'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): We shall take at the same time Government Amendments Nos. 53, 154, 158, 160, 162, 167, 182, 184, 185, 186, 190, 195, 199 and 200.

Mr. Silkin: I am almost tempted to deal with all these amendments seriatim, for they are all the same. They are minor drafting amendments. In Committee, the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg)—I am sorry he is not here to hear my tribute—pointed out that, no doubt because we had a plethora of draftsmen for different parts of the Bill, several phrases for exactly the same purposes were being used—"as soon as possible", "as soon as practicable", "as soon as may be", and so on. We agreed to see whether we could use the same wording throughout and these amendments are greatly to the credit of the hon. Member and the draftsmen.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I hesitate to say whether it is possible for any of us on this side of the House to object to such a practical series of amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15

REPORTS

Amendments made:

No. 53, in page 13, line 32, leave out 'possible' and insert 'practicable'.

No. 279, in page 13, line 38, leave out
'would be against the national interest to do so'

and insert:
'should be omitted in the interests of national security'.—[Mr. John Silkin.]

Clause 16

MANAGEMENT, ETC. OF LAND HELD BY THE AUTHORITY

Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 60, in page 14, line 36,

leave out from beginning to 'shall' in line 37 and insert:
'Every local authority in Wales'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): With this we are to take Government Amendment No. 238 and Amendment No. 61, in line 36, leave out
'and every officer of a local authority'.

Mr. Silkin: Amendment No. 60 is proposed to meet points made by the Opposition in Committee. The duty on officers to supply information was criticised and an undertaking was given that the matter would be considered. The intention behind the original wording was to cover the case where a local authority refused to supply information and there was no sanction which could be brought to ensure that it did supply the information.
The Opposition felt that this was unnecessary and perhaps even rather an uncomfortable way of proceeding. We have looked at the matter again and I am happy to say that we have found that it is unnecessary to proceed on the original basis. Therefore, we hope that this amendment will receive the full agreement of this House.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Amendment No. 60 meets the wishes of the Opposition as expressed in Amendment No. 61. Therefore, I shall not proceed with that amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Alec Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 62, in page 15 leave out lines 1 to 6.
This is an example of an occasion on which my right hon. and hon. Friends have taken advantage of the Committee stage, have listened to the arguments and have then produced amendments which I believe in this case will meet with the approval of the Government and the Opposition.
During the 11th Sitting of the Committee it was argued that the subsection which we are proposing to delete would prevent an action being brought against the Land Authority or an agent local authority on grounds of ultra vires in any circumstances. An assurance was given in Committee that the matter would be looked at again.
I have to report that we looked at the matter again, and the legal advice is that


even without subsection (9) the Bill does not prevent an action for damages in respect of nuisance or negligence being brought against the Land Authority or an agent local authority. The authority in question could not plead the defence of statutory authority unless the action complained of was carried out in pursuance of a statutory duty.
All the powers granted by Clause 16 are, in fact, discretionary rather than mandatory, so it is not now considered that the Land Authority or a local authority could possibly plead statutory authority as a defence to actions for nuisance or negligence. It is now considered, therefore, that the subsection can be omitted from the Clause, and the amendment provides for its deletion as requested by the Opposition in Committee.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I am not sure that we pressed in Committee for total deletion of the subsection. I have spoken to my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) about this amendment, and I think that it was his suggestion in Committee that subsection (9) should end at the word "person" in line 4, because the first words of the subsection appear to give power to an individual to bring an action against the Land Authority or a local authority, whereas the latter part seems to give power to the authorities concerned perhaps to act ultra vires.
It was our view that the Government might have deleted the last two lines and the remainder of line 4 after the word "person". However, they have deleted the whole subsection, and perhaps one can best sum the matter up by saying that they have given us part of what we wanted but not all of it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 17

GENERAL DUTIES OF AUTHORITIES

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 63, in page 15, line 11, leave out from 'day' to end of line 12.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): We shall consider at the same time the following amendments: Government Amendments Nos. 280, 281, 64, 283, 70, 80, 84 and 302.

Amendment No. 65, in page 15, line 16, at end insert
'every authority shall act in accordance with the development plan for its area and with any planning permission in force in respect of the land'.

Amendment No. 69, in page 15, line 17, leave out subsections (2) to (6).

Amendment No. 78, in page 53, line 26, leave out Schedule 3.

Amendment No. 327, in Schedule 3, page 53, line 29, leave out from 'authority' to 'the' in line 37 and insert
'in exercising their functions on or after the first appointed day and in particular—

(a) in considering the desirability of securing the proper planning of their area; and
(b) in considering the desirability of bringing development land into public ownership and whether the land acquired by them should be developed by them or made available for development by others;

shall have regard to'.

Mr. Page: Amendment No. 63 makes only part of the change which I wish to effect in Clause 17, though I acknowledge at once that the set of amendments which the Government have put down have the same objective in principle.
In Committee, the Opposition pressed that the decisions of an authority when exercising its functions under the Bill should be guided by the planning law or planning decisions applicable to its area. That was accepted by the Government, and I am grateful for their having set down a series of amendments to put it into effect, but I think that my amendments would make matters a lot simpler. If my amendments were made, the clause would read in this simple way:
In exercising their functions on or after the first appointed day of bringing development land into public ownership and of developing that land themselves or of making it available for development by others, every authority shall act in accordance with the development plan for its area and with any planning permission in force in respect of the land.
That is a simple statement, without complication, saying merely that when exercising their functions under the Bill local authorities should take into account, have regard to—whatever phrase one wishes—the development plan for the area and the planning permissions in force in respect of the land itself.
To a great extent, the Government amendments meet the same objective, and I think that my only objection is that


they are rather more elaborate, with rather more escape provisions for a local authority to escape from paying full attention to the development plan and planning permissions in force in respect of the land. I refer in particular to Government Amendment No. 70 and paragraph (c) thereof.
Amendment No. 70 seeks to direct local authorities to look to the delevopment plan and to planning permissions, as indeed do my amendments, but it also adds paragraph (c):
any other considerations which, on an application for planning permission for any relevant development on the land, would be material for the purpose of determining that application.
That widens the sphere and does not pin down local authorities to look at the development plan.
If we extend the considerations to local authorities too far under the clause, the danger is that the local authority is both the acquiring and planning authority. If it pays attention to an existing development plan or to existing planning permissions in respect of land, the danger of its deciding via planning functions in respect of the acquisition of land is reduced. I am anxious to divide those functions as much as possible. There is a danger that if a local authority has the right to acquire land for development—and later in the Bill there is the duty to acquire it for development—and if it also has all the planning functions, it may well be judge and jury in its own case and consider more the question of profitability and acquisition than the question of planning amenities.
I had hoped that the Government would accept my simple statement—namely, that in exercising those functions they should act in accordance with the development plan and with the planning permission relating to the land. It is a simple statement, it would simplify the Bill, and would oblige the acquiring authority to pay full attention to the planning law affecting the area.

Mr. Raison: This series of amendments constitutes an important part of the debate because it raises the question of the Government's approach to the planning implications of the Bill.
When the Bill appeared, the objections that were strongly pressed against it on

planning grounds included three of particular importance. First, there was the conflict between the planning rôle of the local authorities and their new rôle under the Bill as developers with a clear financial incentive to development. That point has been made over and over again. Secondly, there was the absolute need to maintain planning standards and considerations and to consider the fact that this was in no way written into the Bill. Thirdly, there was the objection that the Government had never explained why the existing combination of local authority powers to draw up plans and to determine applications was inadequate.
One of the feeblest aspects of the Government's performance is that they have never got down to explaining what is wrong with the present set-up. They have relied on the age-old Socialist shibboleths as a substitute for what shoud have been considered arguments. We consider that the Government were pushed into this position by the way they rushed out their White Paper in a flood of pre-election documents which appeared in September of last year.
When the Minister was challenged on Second Reading, he said he did not care, he was not interested in achieving consensus, and he added that this was a radical measure of which he was proud. That complete lack of interest in trying to build up an agreed solution has led to the cascade of opposition aroused by this Bill. Everybody will agree that it has aroused more opposition from informed quarters than any other piece of legislation in memory.
The Minister took the view then that he did not mind. He should have said to all the relevant bodies "What do we need to produce more effective planning? What powers would you like?" It would have been reasonable for the Government to have adopted that approach. Many people would have said, if the Government had adopted that approach, that there was not all that much wrong with the present system. No doubt others would have had ideas for its improvement. Instead, the Minister produced the Bill, which aroused intense hostility, not least from the experts. As a result it had a long hot summer of sustained hammering.
We have now got concessions from the Government. There is no doubt that they


are important concessions. Essentially they are, first, recognition of the desirability of securing proper planning. This is now to be written into the Bill. Secondly, the provisions of development plans have to be taken into consideration. Thirdly, so does the question whether planning permission has been refused and the whole question of planning application considerations generally.
The question is whether these concessions meet our objections. I want briefly to match them against the three general criticisms which I have put forward. The first is what might be called the rôle conflict. By that I mean the conflict between the planning duties of local authorities and their development ambitions which I suppose are kindled by the Bill. It is true that the planning rôle has been boosted and has been given safeguards, but the conflict is still there. There will still be a financial incentive for local authorities to develop. This may not be true in the big cities where, paradoxically enough, they are most likely to need the extra money and most likely not to achieve it. Overall the fact remains that there is nothing in these Government amendments which destroys the conflict between these two rôles. I hope that the Minister has seen the latest memorandum from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors which makes this very point.
Secondly, there is the fact that planning considerations are written into the Bill. Clearly the position is improved by that. However, the Bill talks about having regard to the desirability of achieving proper planning. If the Minister is so dedicated to the notion of proper planning, why was it impossible to come up with a stronger phrase than
having regard to the desirability"?
That is about as feeble a way of expressing an intention as anybody could devise.
The third question was whether we need the Bill at all to secure better planning. This question has still not been answered. It is still not shown why all the apparatus, the bureaucracy, the expense, the compulsory acquisitions, are necessary for good planning. I remain entirely unconvinced of the desirability of bringing development land into public ownership. This is to be one of the considerations of the Bill, but it has never been effectively argued that it is needed. However

much the Government may have modified their stance on planning in response to pressure in Committee from my hon. Friends and outside, the basic objection in principle remains. In particular, the duty to acquire from the second appointed day is as unnecessary as it is repugnant, with even the modified duty to acquire remaining fraught with dangers.
There are one or two other serious problems which the Minister must face. First, there is no doubt that this new scheme which the Government are putting forward will cause additional chaos in the planning system, in particular in the system of development control.
We had the expert report from Mr. George Dobry a year or so ago. Mr. Dobry came up with the proposal for new categories in the consideration of planning applications. The Bill also produces new categories—namely, exemptions and exceptions. Those categories will have to be fed into the planning machine. They will make it much more difficult to achieve reforms of the sort which most people accept are necessary and which were put forward in the Dobry Report. In other words, the new proposals will make our development control system a considerable mess.
Secondly, there is the difficult question of the damage which the present proposals will do to public participation in matters concerned with compulsory purchase. Under the Government's scheme a public inquiry will not always be required for compulsory purchase. That will have the effect that the countryside and amenity groups, for example, which are able to use the public inquiry system as it stands to make their views known, may well lose their chance to participate. Again, that is a grave objection.
A Justice committee has produced a report on this matter. It has made it clear that it is very concerned that the issue whether land is suitable for relevant development is entirely in the discretion of the local authority. The report reads:
The Committee feel that the issue of whether land is 'suitable for relevant development' is of crucial importance and that there should be some procedure whereby, in cases of dispute, the local authority's opinion can be tested both by the owner of the land and by representative bodies of local opinion such as amenity societies. This means that at the compulsory purchase stage there must be adequate provision for public inquiries".


I have tried to be brief, but I believe that the points I have put forward are of crucial importance in the consideration of the Bill. It is up to the Government to come up with some sensible answers to these problems. If they do not, the scheme can never command the acceptance which I think Ministers recognise is essential. We remain of the view that fundamentally the scheme is wrong. We welcome the concessions, but we think they will need much more discussion if and when they reach another place. I hope that the Minister will meet the points that I have tried to put to him.

Mr. Oakes: The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) rightly considers that the Government amendments to Clause 17 fundamentally alter the clause. The amendments were made as a result of the discussions that we had in Committee. It was felt not only by Conservative Members but by some outside bodies that the idea that there should be a planning framework or planning basis under the Bill should not be implicit but explicit. The amendments that the Government have brought forward, as the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) accepted, make the proposition explicit except in one particular to which I shall refer at a later stage.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury has gone much wider than the amendments. The hon. Gentleman is criticising the fundamental concepts of the Bill. Within the concept and constraints of the amendments I do not think I can adequately deal with the almost Third Reading speech that the hon. Gentleman delivered in his opposition to the concept of a Community Land Bill.
As regards the planning framework, I deal first with the point made by the right hon. Member for Crosby. The right hon. Gentleman used the words "in accordance with the planning framework" rather than the wording within the Bill, words that have had many contentious hours of debate in Committee—namely,
to have regard to the Bill".
11.0 p.m.
The difficulty with the more simplistic framework of Clause 17 which would result from the amendments of the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) is that it would tie all local authorities in a

restrictive way, through the use of the words "in accordance with"—particularly in the early years of the scheme—to the structure and local plans which in many cases are not ready or the old-style development plans, some of which are out of date.
Such an approach would prevent the majority of authorities from effectively implementing the land scheme. For many years much of the release of land in the main pressure areas has taken place outside the framework of the statutory planning system. In many areas local authorities have prepared non-statutory plans which have been accepted as forming a basis for the consideration of planning applications. Decisions on applications for development which would constitute a substantial departure from the plan have taken into account the content of non-statutory plans where these have been the subject of adequate public participation. Again, this is something that we are insisting upon in the Bill.
Different words have been used from those in his amendment—the words "pay attention to" the planning framework. I believe that the words "have regard to" which we have included in the Bill substantially meet the point raised and the points made to us by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee when we were urged to include in the Bill the provision that acquisition should be made within a planning framework. That, clearly, is done by the Government amendments to Clause 17.

Mr. Sainsbury: Can the Minister tell us how we will be able to determine whether a local authority has had regard to these matters? What mechanism will exist for interested bodies to probe whether this has taken place in the absence of a proper planning inquiry or the right to objection?

Mr. Oakes: It is not only a question of outside bodies. These schemes are subject to the Secretary of State's investigation, too. We have said that when any scheme is put up the Secretary of State will look to the planning structure and planning base to see whether the planning base has been observed by the authority which wishes to acquire.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr, Raison) went a little outside the narrow


terms of the amendments to discuss development control and the new categories of such control contained in the report of Mr. George Dobry, which is at present being considered by the Department. I do not accept that the amendments to Clause 17 will make a considerable mess of that report, as he claimed. Within the planning framework we have set down in Clause 17 we have in effect met perhaps 95 per cent. of the points made by Conservative Members in Committee. At this hour and this stage I do not want to answer the many points raised by the hon. Gentleman which are Third Reading points.
For the reasons I have given I cannot accept the words put forward by the right hon. Member for Crosby because "in accordance with" would mean in accordance with some plans that are not yet made and some plans that are out of date. Other material considerations have to come into it because of the transitional phase.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made:

No. 280, in page 15, line 11, after 'to' insert '(a)'.

No. 281, in line 13, leave out'(a)'.

No. 64, in line 15, leave out'(b)'.

No. 283, in line 16, at end insert:
'and
(b) the desirability of securing the proper planning of their area.'.—[Mr. Oakes.]

Mr. Michael Morris: I beg to move Amendment No. 66, in page 15, line 16 at end insert—
'Subject to the proviso that no land shall be acquired more than five years ahead of need'.
It is sufficient to say that we all have experience of the poor estimating of both national and local government. We had an example earlier of the Welsh Authority. By means of this amendment, we hope to put a discipline on the local authorities by saying that, instead of the 10-year sphere of activity, they should be restricted to five years. This is an arbitrary figure, of course, but we believe that it is a practical one and that, bearing in mind the recent strictures of the Secretary of State on local government expenditure, it would be no bad thing if the Government took on board this amendment.

Mr. Oakes: I had thought that we had dealt with this argument adequately in Committee, when we said that we would issue guidance to local authorities dealing with the very point made by the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris). On that assurance, the amendment moved in Committee was withdrawn.
The Government do not dissent from the principle behind what the hon. Gentleman seeks in the amendment. But I ask the House to resist it, and I shall give an illustration to exemplify why. I ask hon. Members to consider a town centre development scheme. It could take a local authority a number of years to assemble the land needed for it. Experience shows that this can be a very slow process and, although there are existing powers for acquisition for that kind of development, it would be absurd not to allow the authority concerned to use its powers to acquire all the land that it needed within the context of this Bill rather than acquiring part of it under existing powers and part under the powers in this Bill. The five-year absolute limitation proposed in the amendment would prevent this.
There are other circumstances in which it would be right for an authority to have an opportunity to acquire land for relevant development some time in advance of need. One example, with which I am sure no one would wish to interfere, is where an authority proposes to buy in advance of need from an owner who wishes to move from the area where acquisition was proposed in the longer term. It would be possible for such cases, which would be rare, to be considered on their merits rather than being ruled out absolutely by this amendment. That is why I gave the assurance in Committee that the Department would issue guidance to local authorities on the issue. I repeat that assurance in the House today. But the amendment should be resisted because it is unduly restrictive, for the reasons I have given.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Michael Latham: I beg to move Amendment No. 68, in page 15, line 16, at end insert
'and
'(c) of ensuring that land is provided for the uninterrupted provision of housing and other development within their area'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): With this amendment, we are to discuss the following amendments:
No. 72, in page 15, line 31, at end insert:
'(c) any other material considerations, including the need to ensure an adequate supply of land for the continuing and uninterrupted supply of both public and private housing and other development within the area of the authority.'
No. 77, in Schedule 3, page 53, line 36, at end insert:
'(c) in considering other material considerations including the need to ensure an adequate supply of land for the continuing and uninterrupted supply of both public and private housing and other development within the area of the authority'.
No. 81, in page 53, line 36, at end insert:
'and
(c) in considering the desirability of facilitating and encouraging the continuing and uninterrupted provision of housing and other development within the district'.
No. 87, in page 53, line 46, at end insert
which may include a requirement that sufficient land is acquired and serviced and made available to private builders to enable the maintenance of a supply of private houses in at least the same proportion in relation to the total supply of houses in the area of the authority as had applied prior to 12th September 1974'.
No. 119, in Schedule 5, page 70, line 1, at end insert:
'(c) maintaining a fair balance in the amount and quality of land available for local authority housing and private housing.'
No. 239, in Clause 46, page 41, line 36, at end insert
'and shall so direct if on submission to him by any interested party he is satisfied that prima facie land or a material interest in land which is for the time being entered in the authority's community land account should be disposed of so as to contribute to an adequate supply of private housing and other development within the area of the authority'.

Mr. Latham: We discussed this amendment at length in Committee. For that reason, I shall be brief, although it is a very important amendment.
The purpose of the amendment is to get it clearly on record in the Bill that one of the duties of local authorities under the land scheme will be to ensure that land is provided for the uninterrupted provision of housing and other development

within their areas. It cannot be said too often that land is the vital commodity for the provision of houses.
The use of land and the development of houses on land is the difference between a developer and a contractor. The developer is risk-taking on the land whereas the contractor is not. Even with the accepted development provisions which the Minister has brought before the House this evening, with this new limit of 10,000 square feet the majority of houses, if this scheme goes through, will still be on land either in public ownership or which has passed through public ownership. The Opposition are not imbued with great confidence in the ability of local authorities to make land available for development in the future if they are to be the monopoly suppliers of building land. There is nothing in their previous record which leads us to have great confidence in them.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) was Minister he had to issue three circulars—10/1970, 102/1972 and 122/1973—asking local government to ensure that more land was released for house building. In each case slightly stronger language was used year after year, but nevertheless the response was very poor.
The report of the Housing Research Foundation found that 40 per cent. of land used for housebuilding was land which had been white land, that is to say, builders had found it for themselves rather than it being marked on a development plan. Some major builders who are household names have publicly said that they get 80 per cent. of their land for providing houses on appeal to the Minister. In eight cases out of ten the local authority had refused them planning permission and they had to get it from the Minister, on appeal. Therefore, the record is not good. Certainly the builders themselves are not imbued with confidence that local authorities will do the job properly. The President of the House-Builders' Federation, writing in the Building Trades Journal on Friday 10th October, said:
The proposals will cause a serious land famine within two years at the most. That will bring the housebuilding programme practically to a dead stop…. We are particularly concerned that the transitional system will lead to a damaging shortfall in the supply of land over the next few years


which will have a disastrous impact on the housebuilding programme.
Already there are signs that this is happening, and reports from our members indicate that many land-owners who were previously considering the sale of their land for development purposes have abandoned their plans because of the proposed development land tax and the existing development gains tax.
There are already serious grounds for concern about the future prospects of land for development. There is not much we can do about improving the position in the Bill, because it is a Bill which will inevitably dry up the supply of land. However, we can only put a duty on local authorities to take that into consideration. That is the purpose of the amendment.

Mr. Harry Ewing: If I deal with the amendment briefly it is not a sign of discourtesy to the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) but because this issue was debated at length in Committee. Much of the argument was rehearsed in Committee and has been repeated tonight. For that reason I do not intend to deal with the matter at length.
However, there appears to be some inconsistency in the hon. Gentleman's argument when he talks about his lack of faith in local authorities to provide land for building. He seems to presuppose that if land were released for building, building would take place. The history of 1972 and 1973 under the previous administration shows that housing starts in England, Wales and Scotland were the lowest we have ever had on record. There is no evidence to suggest that the two issues are in any way related. Government policy must inspire both public and private building. The decline in housing starts in 1972 and 1973 were, in our view, directly related not to the lack of development land but to the policy being pursued by the then administration.
11.15 a.m.
The objective behind the first group of amendments, Nos. 68, 72 and 77, is to

ensure that the exercise of the functions given to the authorities under the Bill does not have the effect of holding up housing and other essential development. This concern is entirely reasonable and, indeed, is fully shared by the Government. Therefore, on this issue there is nothing between the hon. Gentleman and myself.

The proposed contents of the accepted development regulations are framed to achieve precisely this object. The importance of ensuring that private development goes ahead without interruption is enshrined in paragraph 1 of Schedule 3, which lists among the factors to which authorities should have regard in exercising their functions not only the needs of people living or carrying on business in the area or wishing to do so but also and quite specifically the needs of builders and developers engaged in or wishing to engage in development in the area. These provisions are included in the Bill with a view to providing precisely the same assurance as that which these amendments are intended to offer.

The hon. Gentleman will recall that I argued at length in Committee that there was no need to include in the Bill the specific provisions to which the amendments refer. We have seen nothing to alter our view on this issue. Indeed, if anything, the argument that I put forward in Committee has now been strengthened by the accepted development regulations. Therefore, I again rest my argument on the view and the belief that there is no need to include these provisions in the Bill.

Mr. Michael Latham: The Under-Secretary has given a most courteous reply, but this is a matter of the greatest possible importance, and I do not think that the reply is satisfactory. Therefore, I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote in favour of the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 252.

Division No. 332.]
AYES
[11.16 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Baker, Kenneth
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Aitken, Jonathan
Banks, Robert
Bottomley, Peter


Alison, Michael
Beith, A. J.
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Benyon, W.
Braine, Sir Bernard


Awdry, Daniel
Biffen, John
Brittan, Leon


Bain Mrs Margaret
Body, Richard
Brotherton, Michael




Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hooson, Emlyn
Rathbone, Tim


Bryan, Sir Paul
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Budgen, Nick
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bulmer, Esmond
Hunt, John
Reid, George


Burden, F. A.
Hurd, Douglas
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Carlisle, Mark
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Carr, Rt Hon Robert
James, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Jessel, Toby
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Clegg, Walter
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Cockcroft, John
Kimball, Marcus
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Sainsbury, Tim


Cope, John
Knight, Mrs. Jill
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Costain, A. P.
Knox, David
Scott, Nicholas


Crawford, Douglas
Lamont, Norman
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Critchley, Julian
Lane, David
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Crouch, David
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shepherd, Colin


Crowder, F. P.
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Shersby, Michael


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Lawrence, Ivan
Silvester, Fred


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Lawson, Nigel
Sims, Roger


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Lester Jim (Beeston)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Drayson, Burnaby
Lloyd, Ian
Speed, Keith


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Loveridge, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
MacCormick, Iain
Sproat, Iain


Emery, Peter
Macfarlane, Nell
Stainton, Keith


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
MacGregor, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Eyre, Reginald
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Madel, David
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Farr, John
Marten, Neil
Stokes, John


Fell, Anthony
Mates, Michael
Stradling Thomas, J.


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Maude, Angus
Tapsell, Peter


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Mawby, Ray
Tebbit, Norman


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mayhew, Patrick
Thomas, Dafydd (Marioneth)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Fox, Marcus
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Thompson, George


Freud, Clement
Mills, Peter
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Fry, Peter
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Moate, Roger
Tugendhat, Christopher


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Montgomery, Fergus
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Morgan, Geraint
Viggers, Peter


Glyn, Dr Alan
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Wakeham, John


Goodhew, Victor
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Goodlad, Alastair
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Gorst, John
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Wall, Patrick


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mudd, David
Walters, Dennis


Grant Anthony (Harrow C)
Neave, Airey
Warren, Kenneth


Gray, Hamish
Nelson, Anthony
Weatherill, Bernard


Grieve, Percy
Neubert, Michael
Wells, John


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Newton, Tony
Welsh, Andrew


Grist, Ian
Nott, John
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Hall, Sir John
Onslow, Cranley
Wiggin, Jerry


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Wigley, Dafydd


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Page, John (Harrow West)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Hannam, John
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Winterton, Nicholas


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Parkinson, Cecil
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Pattie, Geoffrey
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Hawkins, Paul
Penhaligon, David



Hayhoe, Barney
Percival, Ian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Henderson, Douglas
Pink, R. Bonner
Mr. Richard Luce and


Heseltine, Michael
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Mr. Anthony Berry.


Higgins, Terence L.
Raison, Timothy





NOES


Abse, Leo
Booth, Albert
Carter, Ray


Allaun, Frank
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Anderson, Donald
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Cartwright, John


Armstrong, Ernest
Bradley, Tom
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Clemitson, Ivor


Atkinson, Norman
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Cohen, Stanley


Bates, Alf
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Coleman, Donald


Bean, R. E.
Buchan, Norman
Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Buchanan, Richard
Conlan, Bernard


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Campbell, Ian
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)


Bidwell, Sydney
Canavan, Dennis
Corbett, Robin


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cant, R B.
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Boardman, H.
Carmichael, Neil
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)







Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cryer, Bob
Judd, Frank
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Kaufman, Gerald
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Kelley, Richard
Roderick, Caerwyn


Davidson, Arthur
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Kinnock, Neil
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Lambie, David
Rooker, J. W.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lamborn, Harry
Roper, John


Deakins, Eric
Lamond, James
Rose, Paul B.


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Leadbitter, Ted
Rowlands, Ted


Dempsey, James
Lee, John
Sandelson, Neville


Doig, Peter
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Sedgemore, Brian


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Litterick, Tom
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Dunn, James A.
Loyden, Eddie
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Dunnett, Jack
Luard, Evan
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Eadie, Alex
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Edge, Geoff
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Sillars, James


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Silverman, Julius


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
McCartney, Hugh
Skinner, Dennis


English, Michael
McElhone, Frank
Small, William


Ennals, David
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Snape, Peter


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Spearing, Nigel


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Mackintosh, John P.
Spriggs, Leslie


Flannery, Martin
Maclennan, Robert
Stallard, A. W.


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Stoddart, David


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McNamara, Kevin
Stott, Roger


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Madden, Max
Strang, Gavin


Ford, Ben
Magee, Bryan
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Forrester, John
Mahon, Simon
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Swain, Thomas


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Marks, Kenneth
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Freeson, Reginald
Marquand, David
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


George, Bruce
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Ginsburg, David
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Gould, Bryan
Meacher, Michael
Tierney, Sydney


Gourlay, Harry
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Tinn, James


Graham, Ted
Mikardo, Ian
Tomlinson, John


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Millan, Bruce
Torney, Tom


Grant, John (Islington C)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E. Kilbride)
Urwin, T. W.


Grocott, Bruce
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Hardy, Peter
Molloy, William
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Harper, Joseph
Moonman, Eric
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Ward, Michael


Hatton, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Watkins, David


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Moyle, Roland
Watkinson, John


Heffer, Eric S.
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Weetch, Ken


Hooley, Frank
Newens, Stanley
Weitzman, David


Horam, John
Noble, Mike
Wellbeloved, James


Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Oakes, Gordon
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Ogden, Eric
White, James (Pollok)


Huckfield, Les
O'Halloran, Michael
Whitehead, Phillip


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Whitlock, William


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N)
Orbach, Maurice
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ovenden, John
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Hunter, Adam
Owen, Dr David
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Padley, Walter
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Palmer, Arthur
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Park, George
Wise, Mrs. Audrey


Janner, Greville
Parker, John
Woof, Robert


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Parry, Robert
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Pavitt, Laurie
Young, David (Bolton E)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pendry, Tom



Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Perry, Ernest
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


John, Brynmor
Phipps, Dr Colin
Mr. J.D. Dormand and


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Mr. James Hamilton.


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Price, William (Rugby)



Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Radice, Giles

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made:

No. 70, in page 15, line 18, leave out from 'to' to end of line 34 and insert:
'(a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material,

(b) whether planning permission for any relevant development on the land is in force or has been refused, and
(c) any other considerations which, on an application for planning permission for any relevant development on the land, would be material for the purpose of determining that application.'.

No. 284 in page 15, line 39, at end insert:
'(4A) In this Act "development land" means land which, in the opinion of the authority concerned, is needed for relevant development within ten years from the time at which they are acting.
(4B) Schedule 3 to this Act, which imposes further duties on authorities, shall have effect.'.

No. 75 in page 15, line 40, after 'section', insert:
'and in Schedule 3 to this Act'.

No. 76 in page 16, leave out lines 4 and 5.

No. 355, transfer Clause 17 to end of line 12 on page 18.—[Mr. John Silkin.]

Schedule 3

DEVELOPMENT LAND

Amendment made:

No. 80, in page 53, line 29, leave out from 'authority' to 'development' in line 36 and insert
'in exercising their functions on or after the first appointed day, and in particular in deciding whether development land acquired by them should be developed by them or made available for'.—[Mr. John Silkin.]

Mr. Oakes: I beg to move Amendment No. 82, in page 53, line 37, leave out 'take into account' and insert
'have regard to'.

Mr. Oakes: In this amendment we have our old friend "have regard to" We had a long discussion in Committee about these words and their legal implication. I explained in Committee that the phrases "shall have regard to" and "take into account" are used extensively in statutes and both have exactly the same meaning. However, I accede to some of the criticisms which the Opposition made in Committee that we should be consistent with the phrase that we use. It is desirable for the sake of uniformity—in case there is any misunderstanding on the point—that the same phrase should appear through these related provisions. The opportunity is, therefore, being taken to amend Schedule 3 accordingly.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made:

No. 84, in page 53, leave out line 38.—[Mr. John Silkin.]

Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 85 in page 53, line 42, at end insert—
'(3A) the needs of agriculture and forestry.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): With this amendment it is convenient to take the following amendments:

No. 86 in page 53, line 45, at end insert—
'(6) the needs of agriculture and forestry in consultation with the Minister of Agriculture;
(7) the economic and social interests of rural areas;
(8) the conservation of the environment.'

No. 352 in page 53, line 45, at end insert—
(6) the needs of Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry and the advice of the Ministry of Agriculture;
(7) the desirability to protect conservation areas and their environs:

No. 121 in Schedule 5, page 70, line 12, at end insert—
'(dd) arrangements for the management of land held by any authority pending development with particular regard to the need to encourage the full and proper agricultural use of any farmland acquired by any authority party to the scheme in consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture'.

Mr. Silkin: We have made it clear throughout these long proceedings that we do not intend that the land scheme should pose any threat to agriculture. The scheme is not designed—and never was—to affect the rate at which land in agricultural use is taken for development.
We have tried wherever possible to ensure that the protection of good quality agricultural land shall remain a function of the planning system, and that this will continue to be the case long after the land scheme is in operation. This is achieved by saying that all acquisition is justified against a planning background.
I understand that among the farming community there has been an inevitable fear that this might affect them. I hope that we have been able to reassure them a great deal. I will explain the methods that the Government have taken to reassure the farmers. First, we have announced our intention to amend the general development order so as to require


consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture where development of a substantial area, that is, an area of over 10 acres, of agricultural land is proposed. Consultations on a voluntary basis have been the normal practice for some time.
The proposed change, which was announced in a Written Answer by the Ministry of Agriculture on 14th May, as those who were members of the Committee will remember, will ensure that consultation takes place on a statutory requirement. The amendment to the General Development Order will be made very shortly.
I undertook in Committee to amend paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 so as to require specifically that the authority should take account of the needs of agriculture and forestry in carrying out its functions of land acquisition under the Bill, and the amendment fulfils that undertaking.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Although I welcome the Government amendment as honouring the Minister's promise in Committee, the words do not go far enough. That is why I have tabled Amendment No. 352 which includes the term "horticulture". Apparently, "agriculture" includes horticulture but not when it is market gardening.
I stress that the advice of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should be sought. Until four or five years ago when applications were made for planning permission which involved agricultural land it was a requirement that the advice of the regional agricultural advisory officers should be taken, and that advice was taken into account by planning sub-committees. That provision has been discontinued and usually the Ministry of Agriculture does not now express views on planning applications involving agricultural land. That is not good enough.
I am about to give up farming because I have lost so much money in the last two or three years, but I am giving it up at the wrong time. Within the next two or three years the country will face a food shortage and every acre will have to be put to proper use. The advice of the regional agricultural advisory officers should be taken fully into account before good agricultural land is taken for building purposes. Often the most attractive

building land is land of the highest quality. I can think of 100 acres of land near the central market town in my constituency which could be built on tomorrow with no detriment to agriculture as it is heavy clay land of poor quality.
At least if the Ministry were to be consulted there would be somebody to protect the interests of the agricultural community and, indeed, of the country. I am convinced that in two or three years time all land will have to be cultivated and people will be queuing up for allotments. I should prefer the Minister to write into the Bill that the advice of the Ministry of Agriculture must be sought in all applications for planning permission involving agricultural land.

Mr. W. Benyon: I, too, welcome the amendment, which gives a modest protection to agriculture and which we sought in Committee. I want to ask about the General Development Order. One is always suspicious when one is told that something is to be done "shortly". May we take it that the measure will be introduced in the next session?

Mr. Clegg: I support what has already been said, for I feel that the amendment is acceptable but goes only part of the way to meet the demands of the agricultural industry, which feels that to have it embedded in Schedule 3 is not enough.
The growing importance of agricultural land will be expressed more and more in the House. In Lancashire there are plans to build on green field sites, much to the detriment of the local farming community. The opposition to the use of such sites is growing. Farmers want to have the importance of agricultural land taken much more into account in planning, especially in new towns.
We shall be faced with a situation in which it is essential for the economy that we should forsake the use of agricultural land and instead take much more advantage of land in the centres of our towns which is lying undeveloped and is quite unsuitable for agricultural use but capable of being developed for industry and housing. Anything that can give prominence to the importance of agriculture to the economy ought to be incorporated into the Bill. The amendment goes some small way towards it but we should be


aware that the era, in which both parties have been responsible, of taking agricultural land for urban expansion is coming to an end if we are to feed ourselves and make the best use of our own country.

Mr. Rossi: I want to refer to Amendment No. 86, which relates to other factors which have not yet been raised in the debate. It would not only require consideration to be given to the needs of agriculture and forestry in consultation with the Minister of Agriculture but would require that consideration be given to the economic and social interests of rural areas and to the conservation of the environment.
The Opposition believe that these matters are of equal importance to the other matters set out so far in Schedule 3. The schedule seeks to lay down certain criteria to which the local authorities should have regard when considering the desirability of developing land themselves or having it developed by others. There is no mandatory requirement, no directive, to the local authorities. There is simply a request by Parliament that they should take into account certain factors when considering the desirability of developing land.
The schedule lists a number of them—the needs of people wishing to carry on business or live in a particular locality, the needs of builders and developers, all desirable things which have to be taken into account. But so far the needs of agriculture and forestry are not included to the extent we would like them to be. A major defect of the Bill, even after the planning background improvements, is that little or no consideration is given to the preservation of the environment.
11.45 p.m.
During our consideration of this Bill on Second Reading we had a certain amount of teasing across the Floor of the House about the fate of common land and open spaces. On the interpretation of one of the schedules, it is quite possible for local authorities, in exercising their acquisitive and development powers, to override existing legislation which protects common land and open spaces. We received assurances from the right hon. Gentleman, in his usual urbane and

suave manner, that, perish the thought, this was not intended in any way and that we should not be over-concerned about this, no matter what the language might be in the Bill.
Here now is an opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman, without imposing any binding obligation upon local authorities, nevertheless to make it clear to them that this is an important factor and that when considering the development of land they must bear in mind the advisability of preserving it for enjoyment and amenity reasons. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not reject our pleas out of hand because many people are worried about the conservation of the environment, and I believe that it behoves the right hon. Gentleman to give some consideration to that depth of feeling and to ensure that a criterion of this kind should be included in the Bill.

Mr. Robin Corbett: I wish to thank my right hon Friend for being persuaded—if I may use that un-emotive word—to the sense of this amendment. I share the view of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) about this. Many of us in the Standing Committee would have wished to see a duty laid upon local authorities to consult the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when it is proposed to develop high quality agricultural land, and to obtain consent before doing so. The creation of such a duty remains one of my ambitions for as long as I am in this House, because I believe that we gobble up high-quality agricultural land at our peril. Once it has got cement, concrete, bricks and mortar on it, it is too late. We jeopardise the food supplies of this country at our peril.
I realise that this is not the occasion on which to debate this issue, but the least my right hon. Friend can do—and I know he will accept these words in the sense in which I mean them—is to take note of the unanimous voice of the Standing Committee about the absolute necessity to write into this Bill a provision placing an obligation on those who want to develop land to take into consideration the needs of agriculture and forestry.
What astonished me when the Bill was published was to find that we take into account the development plans of the area authority, the needs of persons living


or carrying on business and the other activities in the area, and the needs of builders, and yet we know that the demand for houses, hospitals, schools and roads is gobbling up good agricultural land at a rate which we cannot afford to sustain. Some Government must be brave enough to put a brake on this and get the priority of food production right.
I believe that the National Farmers' Union and the farming community should be pleased that the Government have been persuaded by the Committee to accept the need to write this obligation into this legislation. There was some argument to the effect that this was not the way in which to do it, and that this requirement should be embodied in the planning law. But we do not operate in ideal circumstances. I hope that the agricultural and horticultural interests will recognise that we have persuaded the Government to lay an obligation on local authorities to pay particular attention to the need to conserve agricultural land.
This has given us, if I may so put it, one foot over the fence. I want the other leg to get over as well, but this is a good start which the industry should welcome.

Mr. John Silkin: The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) said that on Second Reading I was urbane. Very well—from urbanity to rurality—[Hon. Members: "Oh."] Not bad for this time of night, surely.
I take, first, the point made by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross). I have it on the best possible authority that he need not worry about the definition of horticulture. Horticulture is included in agriculture by virtue of the planning acts. I can think of no higher authority than the hon. Gentleman himself, for he told me so as we were leaving the Chamber a minute or two ago in time for the last Division. I have checked up, and he is right, of course.
I think that I am just about able also to solve the riddle or enigma of the difference between market gardens and horticulture if I explain to the House—this is practically the sole topic of conversation in Deptford, which I represent—that horticulture includes market gardens but market gardens do not necessarily include horticulture.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) and all other hon. Members who have spoken, from all three parties, stressed in one way or another that we must take account of the basic needs of agriculture and forestry. That is exactly what Government Amendment No. 85 is all about. We undertook to do that in Committee. It seemed that the case was strong and unanimous, and we have kept that undertaking. Before I go on to whether or how one might extend it, perhaps I should get rid of one or two points which were raised en route.
The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) asked for a time when the GDO will be amended. I intend to steal the splendid words of the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg), which he will now see emblazoned in about a dozen places in the Bill, and say "As soon as practicable". But I can go somewhat further than that. Since none of this can take effect before the first appointed day, I have made inquiries and I am assured, and can therefore undertake to the hon. Gentleman, that work is very far in hand and well before the first appointed day the GDO will have been amended.
I come now to the point of difference, if it really be such, raised by the hon. Member for Hornsey. He wanted Amendment No. 86 to be accepted because, while stressing the needs of agriculture and forestry, it goes a little further and refers to the
economic and social interests of rural areas
and mentions conservation.
There is a slight difficulty here. If we were to say that the economic and social interests of rural areas had to be taken into account, it would equally be proper to add that the economic and social interests of urban areas should be taken into account. I am afraid that one would cancel out the other and the effect would be meaningless, yet that would logically be what one ought to do.
The other point made by the hon. Member for Homsey related to the environment and conservation in relation to planning. He is absolutely right. I could not agree more. But, surely, that is what this whole business is about. Administratively this must be seen against the background of the planning frame-work. The longest-recorded Secretary of State for the Environment is my right


hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland). Anybody who tries to argue with him about destroying the environment is in for a bad time indeed. I hope that such an attitude will be the prerogative of all Secretaries of State for the Environment.
When we speak of development in accordance with the planning framework, I hope that we are referring not only to planners and the obvious temptations to seize Grade II agricultural land. If they attempted to take such a step, they would find a rough referee at the back of them. That must be fitted into the planning framework. I am not going back on the fact that there must be a firm Ministry of Agriculture hand in the background and that there must be the sort of consultations of what the hon. Member for Isle of Wight spoke, but I would point out that we already have proper protection. Indeed, we have all the matters which I mentioned earlier, we have Amendment No. 85, and we have the determination to make the planning framework ensure that we do not steal the high quality agricultural land that we need environmentally and also for the protection of our future food supplies. Therefore, I hope that the House will accept Amendment No. 85 and reject the Opposition's proposals.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 285, in page 53, line 43, leave out
'parish councils or, in Wales'
and insert
'local authorities and parish or'.
The main purpose of paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 is to ensure that the authorities operating the scheme, as they build up a monopoly of development land, have due regard to the needs of those who are engaged in carrying out development. We talked earlier about the needs of agriculture and forestry, but this covers not only builders and those engaged in industry and commerce, but also bodies such as parish councils which could find that they could not obtain land for development if all the suitable land in an area was purchased by the authorities operating the scheme.
As the authorities for the purposes of the scheme will generally be local

authorities, it may seem unnecessary to include in this list a reference to the needs and obligations of local authorities. There are, however, circumstances which make it desirable to cover this point. For example, where a district council is operating the scheme in an area it will have, in planning its acquisitions of land for private development, to have regard to the needs of the county council—for example, to obtain land for school sites. Similarly, a county council operating the scheme will need to have regard to the needs of the district councils. More widely, county and district councils around the major conurbations will need to have regard to the needs of the conurbation authorities which may be looking to out-county areas to provide some of the land for their housing programmes. An example of this approach is the arrangement that the Greater London Council already has with the Standing Conference for land to be made available in the Standing Conference area for Greater London Council housing.
I gather that the provision may also be particularly apposite in Wales, where the operation of the scheme is in the hands not of the local authority but of the Land Authority. This point was overlooked in the original drafting of paragraph 1 of the schedule, and I hope that in rectifying this the amendment makes a useful addition to the list of matters to which the authorities must have regard.

Amendment agreed to.

12 midnight.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I beg to move Amendment No. 88, in page 53, line 46, at end insert—
'(2) In Scotland a general planning authority, in acting as described in sub-paragraph (1) above, shall also have regard to the needs and obligations of district councils within their area.'.
The Government wish general planning authorities, when exercising their functions under the Bill, to have regard to the interests of the district authorities which lie within their areas. These authorities, although they have been excluded from the definition of the Bill because they are not planning authorities, nevertheless have important functions involving acquisition and development of land, perhaps the most important of these being their public sector housing responsibilities. It is, therefore, only


right that these functions should be recognised by the general planning authority.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the Minister give us some clarification on what is covered by general planning authority and, more important, on what part of the schedule will apply to Scotland. There are two points of doubt. Clause 1(1)(b) says that "authority"
in relation to Scotland means a local authority or a new town authority.
That seems pretty clear. Clause 1(5) says:
In this Act in relation to Scotland 'local authority' means a regional, general or district planning authority within the meaning of Part IX of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
I should be grateful if the Minister would make clear to the House and to those who will read the report of our deliberations precisely what is meant by a general planning authority in the context of this schedule and whether these provisions apply also to new towns in Scotland. Will he indicate further whether it is right that all reference to community councils in Scotland should be omitted from the amendment although there is a specific reference to community councils in the provisions relating to Wales. Scotland has such councils, too.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) will readily recognise that in Scotland, under the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, planning authorities are the regional authorities. As I explained earlier, although the district councils have no planning functions they have important functions to carry out, not least in relation to housing.
As I explained in Committee, we were in some difficulties, because when the White Paper on the Bill was published the regional and district authorities in Scotland were not in being and a form of words had to be used to cover the eventuality of the regional and district authorities coming into being with effect from 16th May 1975.
The point concerning community councils is easily cleared up by explaining that in Wales community councils are statutory bodies with statutory functions among which is the holding of land, whereas community councils in Scotland

are not statutory bodies. In Scotland community councils are set up not by the Government but by the district councils and, therefore, they are not statutory bodies, they do not have statutory functions and they will not be required to hold land.
The similarity between community councils in Wales and community councils in Scotland ends at the word "community" because there is no comparison between the functions of a community council in Wales and one in Scotland.
With those words of explanation I hope that I have cleared up the points that the hon. Gentleman raised.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: If I may speak with the leave of the House, the Minister has said that there is a difference between Scotland and Wales as regards community councils. The hon. Gentleman is right; there is a substantial difference. But will he reconsider what he has said about statutory bodies? He will be aware that unless the Secretary of State approves the setting up of such bodies they cannot come into being. More importantly, I think he will recall that community councils have the power to own both property and land. That is why I specifically wanted this matter to be raised. If the Minister looks at the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 he will find that community councils have the power to rent, to lease and to own property and land.
Further, if the Minister looks at page 2 of the Bill he will see that there is reference to a local authority in Scotland being a regional, general or district planning authority. That is why I should like him to clarify beyond a shadow of doubt precisely what he means by a general planning authority.
The hon. Gentleman has talked about the problems of changeover and transition and how the districts have certain planning powers. That we accept, as we accept that the regions have certain planning powers, but the hon. Gentleman will note the definition of "local authority" which will be used for the purposes of this measure. That will mean that there may be three kinds of authority in Scotland—namely, regional planning authorities, district planning authorities and general planning authorities. The


amendment refers only to general planning authorities, and I am unable to find a definition. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me precisely what he means in this context and in all other contexts by general planning authority. It is obviously different from district and regional authorities. I hope he will also explain how new towns fit into this context.

Mr. Harry Ewing: With the leave of the House, the general planning authority in Scotland is the regional council. That is clearly defined in the 1973 Act.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question whether community councils are entitled to hold land. It could well be that I have misled the hon. Gentleman, and if I have I sincerely apologise. As he says, community councils are entitled to hold land and to hold property, but they are not, as distinct from Welsh community councils, entitled to acquire land. Once the community councils have been set up in Scotland, and even in the process of setting them up, there is no question of the councils acquiring land. It would be the district council which acquired land on behalf of the community council and the community council would only hold the land, but in Wales the community councils act on their own account in acquiring land.
There is a distinct difference between the Welsh community councils, which are statutory bodies and which have the authority to acquire land, and the community councils in Scotland, which are not statutory bodies. Despite what the hon. Gentleman said about the approval of the Secretary of State, which I accept, the Scottish councils are not statutory bodies. They do not have the power to acquire land. It is the district councils that acquire land on behalf of the community councils. A community council might hold land but it is the district council that will acquire land. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that explanation.
New towns are in a different category and I shall consider their position, but, speaking off the cuff, new towns are planning authorities in their own right. New town development corporations are planning authorities in their own right not only as regards land but for many other

aspects of policy. If I am wrong about that in the context of the Bill I shall clear up the matter in correspondence.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 286 in page 54, line 2, after 'land' insert:
'acquired by them as development land'.—[Mr. Oakes.]

Mr. Oakes: I beg to move Amendment No. 287, in page 54, line 5, after 'disposing' insert:
'or entering into a binding contract to dispose'.
This is a tidying-up amendment which has the effect of requiring authorities to consider prior right applications before entering into a binding contract to dispose of a material interest in land. As drafted, paragraph 2(2) requires authorities to have regard to any prior right application before disposing of a material interest in land. However, in the case of residential land we expect that local authorities will first enter into building agreements with the developer and will only dispose of the material interests to the freeholders.
A building agreement is not in itself a material interest although it is a binding contract to convey such an interest. In any event in most cases authorities will enter into contracts to dispose of material interests before they dispose of them, and they should consider applications before they enter into any contract to do so. Amendment No. 287 therefore inserts into paragraph (2)(a) reference to entering into a binding contract.

Mr. Clegg: I welcome the amendment.

Mr. Sainsbury: I, too, welcome the amendment but I wonder whether the words used by the Under-Secretary are entirely the same as those used in the amendment. He referred to entering into "any contract", but the words of the amendment are
entering into a binding contract.
Once again we are in the area of uncertainty introduced by the optional or conditional contract. I hope it would be agreed that it would be equally wrong for an authority to enter into a conditional contract or to grant an option without first considering the prior right procedure. In that context I wonder whether we have yet got this matter right.

Mr. Oakes: By leave of the House, I believe that we have got this right. I will look at the point again with regard to conditional contracts. I think we have gone far enough when we say "a binding contract".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Oakes: I beg to move Amendment No. 288, in page 54, line 9, at end insert
'made in the prescribed form before all out-Standing material interests in the land had been acquired by the authority'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): With this we can also discuss Government Amendments Nos. 289, 290, 291, 292 and 341.

Mr. Oakes: These are a series of amendments to the prior right procedure. They have the effect of defining relevant applications as those made to the authority by owners and developers before the authority acquired all outstanding material interests in the land concerned. Second, they bring the schedule into line with the concept of "outstanding" material interests in land, at present in Clause 20(7) but to be transferred to Clause 6 by Amendment No. 270. The amendments also require applications to be made in a prescribed form. These are tidying-up amendments dealing with points raised in Committee.

Mr. Rossi: One amendment to which the Minister did not address his remarks was Amendment No. 341, which refers to Schedule 6. It deletes the whole of paragraph 12 of that schedule dealing with the question of copies of applications for planning permissions and the registration of those documents with the district authority so that they can be available for searches. In trying to find the explanation for the deletion of this paragraph in the useful notes on amendments, I derive no assistance, because there is no note on this amendment, although it is listed on the front of the sheet. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to read into the record the piece of paper which he has before him. That will assist those wanting to know why this paragraph should be deleted from the schedule at this stage.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Oakes: With the leave of the House, the paragraph in question requires a prior right application made concurrently with an application for planning permission to be copied by the district to the county planning authority. Because prior right applications by both developers and owners must now be made before the authority acquires all outstanding material interests and the reference to an application for planning permission has now been dropped, the provision is now no longer relevant.

Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman has touched on an important point, and I should be grateful for a little further enlightenment.
This is the second bite at this aspect of the Bill, because we discussed it in Committee, but, as I understand it and as the hon. Gentleman has just implied, a previous owner is now required to make his prior right application before completion by the local authority of the acquisition of all outstanding interests. That is not the situation in the Bill without this amendment.
This is a little disturbing. I do not see why the previous owner should be required to make his application before the local authority has completed the acquisition of all outstanding interests. I do not see why his prior rights should be extinguished by that action. I do not see why the previous owner is in any position to know when the local authority is about to complete all outstanding acquisitions or what, within the meaning of this subsection, would constitute all outstanding applications. I hope that it is not the Government's intention to reduce the rights of the previous owner. As drafted, this amendment appears to have that effect.

Mr. Oakes: With the further leave of the House, it is not intended to have the effect that the hon. Gentleman suggests. Paragraph 2(3)(b), as drafted, requires developers to make their prior right applications concurrently with the application for planning permission. At this time, developers would not know whether the land would be acquired by the local authority. On the other hand, the paragraph does not specify any time


within which the owners should make applications. Consequently, the authority could be on the point of selling to someone else and, at the last moment, the former owner could make an application which the authority would have a statutory obligation to consider. To avoid this, Amendments Nos. 288, 289, 290 and 291 require the former owner, like the developer, to make his application before the outstanding material interests in the land have been acquired by the authority. That is the real reasoning behind the amendments. It is not intended to put the burden on the former owner in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Sainsbury: With the leave of the House, we are grateful for the hon. Gentleman's explanation. But, as he says, in the Bill as it stands, previously the rights of a former owner were stronger than those of another applicant in that he was not restricted, as a developer was, in regard to the time by which he had to apply. The effect of the amendment is to restrict the rights of the previous owner.
I appreciate that difficulty to which the hon. Gentleman referred, in that the local authority might be about to dispose of the land to someone else, only suddenly to get a late application. But I am sure that the Government do not wish to restrict unduly the prior rights of a previous owner. If he has to make an application before the completion of an event of which he has no knowledge and no ability of obtaining knowledge, I should have thought that his rights were considerably restricted. I wonder whether this point could be considered again to see whether there is any alternative formula more satisfactory to the previous owner. Perhaps it could be considered in another place?

Mr. Oakes: I shall consider the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 289, in page 54, line 10, leave out 'made'.

No. 290, in page 54, line 13, leave out 'made'.

No. 291, in page 54, line 15, leave out from 'available' to end of line 16.

No. 292, in page 54, leave out lines 25 to 29 and insert:
'was accompanied by the written consent of the owner of every outstanding material interest in the land which had not been acquired by the authority.'.—[Mr. John Silkin.]

Mr. Oakes: I beg to move Amendment No. 90 in, page 54, line 30 leave out paragraph 3.
The Opposition will be delighted to know that we accept this amendment. In Committee my right hon. Friend explained that this was a sweeping-up power in case anything was omitted. He did not advance any specific use for it. Further consideration of the point has led us to agree with the Opposition that we would lose little, if anything, by dropping the paragraph. Therefore, the Government accept the Opposition's amendment and are grateful to the Opposition for laying it.

Mr. Graham Page: I appreciate that both the Opposition and the Government appear in support of this amendment, and we are indeed grateful for that. It seemed that, the procedure for offering the property under the previous paragraphs having been laid down, the whole benefit of that was taken away by throwing a doubt on it in the end because the authority had to take into account some directions from the Secretary of State which might not be known to anybody, even to the person who was about to get the benefit of this procedure. We are very grateful to the Government for giving us the concession for which we asked in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 356, transfer Schedule 3 to end of line 43 on page 70.—[Mr. John Silkin.]

Clause 18

POWERS OF ACQUISITION AND APPROPRIATION

Amendments made: No. 293, in page 16, line 10, leave out 'development land' and insert
'land which, in their opinion, is suitable for development.
(1A) in subsection (1) above "development" does not include development of any class specified in Schedule (Exempt development) to this Act.'.

No. 294, in page 16, line 12, leave out 'development. '—[Mr. John Silkin.]

Mr. Oakes: I beg to move Amendment No. 345, in page 16, line 15, leave out from 'compulsorily' to end of line 17 and insert—

'(a) any land adjoining that land which is required for the purpose of executing works for facilitating its development or use, or
(b) where that land forms part of a common or open space or fuel or field garden allotment, any land which is required for the purpose of being given in exchange therefor.

In the application of this subsection to Scotland the words "or fuel or field garden allotment" shall be omitted.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we may discuss Amendment No. 92, in page 16, line 16, leave out 'in their opinion'.

Mr. Oakes: The amendment has two separate effects. Clause 18(2) empowers an authority to buy land which is not in itself suitable for development, but which is in its opinion required to facilitate the development of such land. The amendment would omit the words "in their opinion". If land proposed to be acquired compulsorily under Clause 18(1) formed
part of a common or open space or fuel or field garden allotment
the compulsory purchase order, if confirmed, would be subject to special parliamentary procedure, except in certain limited circumstances, unless suitable alternative land were provided in exchange.
The second part of the amendment introduces the power to acquire land to be exchanged for the special category land.
In Committee the Opposition moved an amendment to delete the words "in their opinion" and argued that they were unnecessary. I confess that I had considerable sympathy with the arguments they put forward and I agreed to consider the point, although I pointed out that the effect of the amendment would be to remove the judgment from an authority and give it not to the Secretary of State, as the Opposition suggested, but to the court.
Despite suggestions which have been made to the contrary, the power in Sec- 
tion 18(2) is very limited. It is to provide, for example, for access to a site over land adjacent to the primary site. In most, if not all, cases which one can foresee, once the basic issue whether the primary site is suitable for development has been settled, there should be no scope for dispute whether the land to be acquired under subsection (2) is or is not required for facilitating the development of the other land. In these circumstances, it is a matter not of opinion but of fact. Therefore, there would seem to be no real ground for resisting the deletion of the words "in their opinion". In other words, the Government have changed their mind and accept what the Opposition were saying in Committee.
It is hoped that the Opposition will now see fit to withdraw Amendment No. 92 which was originally put down as a Government amendment but has been overtaken by the more wide-ranging revision of subsection (2) in this amendment.

Mr. Rossi: It is a matter of great satisfaction to the Opposition that at least in one place we have been able to remove from the Bill the words "in their opinion" so far as they give an unfettered discretion to local authorities to do what they like.
One of the more dismal aspects of the Bill is that throughout subjective judgments are being made by local authorities instead of objective tests which can be tested elsewhere. Throughout the passage of the Bill, wherever this situation has arisen we have sought to delete those words, and there is a particular reason for doing so here. At the end of the day the authority of the Secretary of State is required for acquisition of this land in the terms contained in subsection (2). Therefore, ultimately it is the opinion not of the local authority but of the Secretary of State. That no doubt has persuaded the Government to accept our argument at least in this instance, although they would not accept it in other instances.
We also welcome the restriction that the acquisition of common land or open space can take place only where exchange land is being provided. That is a welcome addition to the Bill. In those circumstances, I should be happy not to move Amendment No. 92.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 94, in page 16, line 23, after second 'the', insert 'Scottish'.—[Mr. John Silkin.]

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 95, in page 16, line 36, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
'(5) No compulsory order shall be made under this section:—

(a) before the land acquisition and management scheme for the area of the authority has been prepared and approved,
(b) before the first appointed day,

and no land shall be appropriated for the purpose of this Part of this Act before the first appointed day.'
This amendment seeks to remove subsection (5) and to insert another subsection (5). The present subsection provides:
No compulsory purchase order shall be made under this section before the first appointed day, and no land shall be appropriated for the purposes of this Part of this Act before that day.
That is repeated in Amendment No. 95, but there is also added a prohibition of compulsory purchase,
before the land acquisition and management scheme for the area of the authority has been prepared and approved.
In Clause 19 there are provisions relating to the preparation of the land acquisition and management schemes. I understand that those schemes will give local authorities an overall picture of the land which they will be acquiring in their areas, which authorities will be acquiring it, whether county or district, and generally a full picture not only of the development of the land acquired by the purchase and the intention to farm it out for development, but the total expenditure. Until they have that picture of how the development will run in their areas and what it will cost, it seems premature to make compulsory purchases under Clause 18.
The amendment would say, "First prepare your LAMS"—as we have come to know the land acquisition and management schemes—" then wait for the first appointed day, and then set out on this compulsory purchase". It is not that I want any of the local authorities to do that but, assuming that Clause 18 is passed, we ought to hesitate to do it until they have an overall picture of the purchases and developments that they have to make in their areas.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. John Silkin: I cannot help feeling that this amendment is based not just on one misapprehension but on two, because the acquisition power conferred on authorities by Clause 18 is a general and not a particular one. It is not related simply to land scheme purchases; that is, land purchases for private development. It is available for any purchase that an authority may wish to make of land suitable for development, except where the land is being acquired for exempt development. In other words, authorities will be able to acquire land under Clause 18 for what are their present statutory purposes—for their own purposes if one likes. But LAMS are primarily concerned with the operation of the land scheme, not with the operation of the land purchasing functions of authorities for their own use.
The amendment would limit the exercise of the general acquisition power by reference to a factor which relates only, when one thinks of it, to some acquisitions under that power. That is entirely wrong in principle, but we ought perhaps to analyse that acquisition point because there is no reason on earth why authorities should not exercise their powers for land scheme purposes in advance of a land acquisition and management scheme. A LAMS is only a "who does what" functional agreement about how a scheme should work in practice, not a necessary condition of its operation. In practice, of course, all LAMS will be prepared long before the first appointed day, but there is always the possibility, I suppose, of difficulty in some areas. But I doubt it. I think that they will come through very well. They seem to be doing so.
I hope that I have shown the right hon. Gentleman the two basic fallacies in his amendment: first, that we are talking under Clause 18 of all acquisition powers, whether or not for the present statutory functions; secondly, that LAMS as such are merely a delineation of which authorities are undertaking what and are not themselves part of the acquisition machinery.
In the light of that I hope that my hon. Friends will resist the amendment

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 4

ACQUISITION AND APPROPRIATION OF DEVELOPMENT LAND

Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 295, in page 54, line 37, at beginning insert—
'(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that it will be convenient to discuss at the same time Government Amendment Nos. 296 and 297.

Mr. Silkin: Paragraphs 2–4 of Schedule 4 set out the three major changes in compulsory purchase procedure—the stating of reasons rather than purposes, the discretion for the Secretary of State on the holding of an inquiry or hearing, and the power for him to disregard certain objections. The purpose of these amendments is to provide that these changes shall apply only where an authority is using compulsory purchase power to buy land for development which is now defined as being within the normal scope of the scheme.
The desired effect is achieved by Amendment No. 296. This provides that the major changes are to apply only where the authority certifies that the land comprised in a compulsory purchase order is development land. Clearly, if an authority is seeking to buy land for excepted development, perhaps for a small housing project, it will not be able to claim that the land is development land within the meaning now to be given to the terms by virtue of Amendment No. 284—that is land "needed" for "relevant" development. By definition, if it is buying the land for excepted development it cannot be needed for relevant development.
The effect will, therefore, be that, where an authority seeks to buy compulsorily land for excepted development the compulsory purchase procedure will be precisely the same as if it had acted under its planning powers, and there will be no provision enabling it not to state the purposes of acquisition, or the Secretary of State to dispense with an inquiry or disregard objections. It is an essential feature of the new approach that authorities should still have the power to buy land for excepted development. For

example, they might be requested to use their power in order to facilitate development, or they might wish to use it for reasons of positive planning, or they might need to use it to prevent erosion by fragmentation. In these circumstances, where the authority would not be able to state that the land was development land, the normal compulsory purchase procedures would apply.

Mr. Rossi: We have now reached that part of the Bill that the Opposition find the most objectionable—the cutting back of the rights of citizens to appeal against or object to the making of a compulsory purchase order. Even under the existing law, hon. Members know from constituency cases the heartache and hardship caused by the making of compulsory purchase orders, even where there is a right of appeal to a public inquiry, even where the full market price is to be paid, even where local authorities have to be put to the proof of the purpose for which they require the land.
The schedule takes away a number of the existing rights of the citizen. It takes away the right to a public inquiry at the whim of the Secretary of State and certain grounds of objection to the making of a CPO. He can no longer require the local authority to state the purpose for which it requires the land, although under the amendment he can require it to show a "reason"—a subtle distinction. He can no longer argue that the making of the order is unnecessary or inexpedient. Powerful grounds of objection are removed from him.
So any amendments to the schedule which limit the powers of local authorities and the Secretary of State are welcome. Inasmuch as there is now a range of exempted development which can take place to which these procedures do not apply, we welcome it. But I do not follow how any additional protection is given to a private citizen by the simple issue of a certificate by a local authority that the land in question is development land.
It is the same local authority that is making die compulsory purchase order which cannot be resisted under this schedule in the same way as it can be under the present law. It is the authority seeking to use these extreme powers that


now gives the certificate saying that those powers can be used in the circumstances envisaged under the schedule. This does not help the citizen in any way. One wonders what the point or value of a certificate of this kind is.

Mr. Graham Page: This is a most preposterous amendment. Earlier today we discussed excepted development. We were told that if a private owner wished to carry out any of the developments set out in the exempt schedule, if he wanted to build a single dwelling-house, or if he wanted to develop under any of the classes which the Secretary of State may put into some regulations at some time, he could go ahead without being caught by the local authority stepping in or by his land coming within the terms of the Bill as development land.
We have been told at this late stage, and long after we have debated what should be excepted or exempted development, that the land can be considered to be development land and that the exceptions can be disregarded altogether provided that the local authority gives a certificate that it is development land. No one can question the certificate—it is conclusive.
What have we been arguing and debating all day? It is said that the local authority, purely on its own initiative and without any question arising in the courts or elsewhere, can say that the private owner shall not be allowed to develop under the exceptions given in Amendment No. 261 because it is development land. Amendment No. 284 defines "development land". It says:
In this Act 'development land' means land which, in the opinion of the authority concerned is needed for relevant development within ten years from the time at which they are acting".
We should warn the public that all the advertisement about being able to build a single dwelling means nothing because at any moment the local authority may say "Yes, you have that plot. The building of a single development on that plot is excepted from the Bill, but, sorry, we shall say that it is development land. We are allowed to say that if, in our opinion, it is needed for development. If we give a certificate that in our opinion it is needed for development there can be no public inquiry about its compulsory purchase and it

cannot be questioned in court whether it is needed for development. The opinion of the deputy assistant planning officer in the local authority can deprive you of all the rights given you earlier under the Bill."
At this late hour this is an amendment which the Minister should be ashamed to bring before the House.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Michael Latham: Has the right hon. Gentleman submitted the amendment to the Council on Tribunals? We know that the Council was extremely critical of earlier parts of the Bill and as a result of its criticisms some provisions regarding compulsory purchase had to be changed. I should be interested to know the council's views on this proposed certification procedure, in particular, the statement that it:
shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated in it".
That is a very wide and unusual power in the making of a compulsory purchase order. I hope that we shall have a statement from the right hon. Gentleman that he has submitted this certification procedure to the Council on Tribunals and that the Council has raised no objection.

Mr. John Silkin: I am always greatly impressed when the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) gets into a paddy, partly because I like to see it and partly because a certain frisson goes through the Chamber as we listen to him and everyone says "Graham is at it again". Thank heaven he settles down quietly and happily when he has exhausted himself and waits patiently for an answer.
Before I come to that I want to say to the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) that he has "unnecessary "and "inexpedient" slightly wrong, but we shall debate that on a later amendment, and to the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) that I shall be dealing with the Council on Tribunals in a later amendment.
There is only the question of the value of a certificate on which the right hon. Member for Crosby became so worked up. Development land is land which in the opinion of the authority is land needed for relevant development, so only the authority can say whether the land is or is not development land.
Throughout our discussions on the Bill the right hon. Gentleman has claimed some curious friendship with the deputy assistant planning officer to whom he is for ever talking. That does not mean that the Secretary of State has to dispense with an inquiry any more than he has to confirm a compulsory purchase order. If there were the slightest doubt the Secretary of State would insist on an inquiry. I also have not the slightest doubt that if there was the slightest doubt the right hon. Gentleman, members of our profession or someone else would be only too willing to point out that this was a case in which the Secretary of State should intervene.

Mr. Graham Page: How does the Secretary of State know that there is any doubt about it? The certificate is given by some official in the local authority office. There is no doubt about that. The certificate is given, and that is that. Nobody can question it, not even the Secretary of State, because it is conclusive.

Mr. Silkin: He can, because he has to confirm. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have forgotten all those letters that came on to his desk two years ago telling him to call in various inquiries. That

'(2) In relation to the Scottish Act of 1947, the paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 set out above



shall have effect as if for the reference to the Act of 1971 there were substituted a



reference to the Scottish Act of 1972 and for the reference to paragraph 3(1)(b) of



Schedule 1 there were substituted a reference to paragraph 3(b) of Schedule 1.


5
4.—(1) If the Secretary of State considers it necessary to do so in the public interest,



he may from time to time by order direct that for such period (not exceeding five years)



as may be specified in the order the paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 set out above shall have



effect as if the references to the development plan in sub-paragraph (2A)(c) included



references—


10
(a) to any local plan which has been prepared by the local planning authority and as



respects which the purposes of paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 12(1) of the Act



of 1971 (publicity in connection with the preparation of plans) have in the opinion



of the confirming authority, been adequately achieved by the steps taken by the



local planning authority, and


15
(b) to any other plan which has been so prepared and as respects which, if it had



been a local plan, those purposes would, in the opinion of the confirming authority,



have been adequately achieved by the steps so taken.



(2) Where the land comprised in a compulsory purchase order consists of a dwelling-



house and the occupier of the dwelling-house duly objects to the order and that objection


20
is not withdrawn, the Secretary of State shall not rely on the modification made by an



order under this paragraph.



(3) Where the land comprised in a compulsory purchase order comprises a dwelling-



house together with other land and the occupier of the dwelling-house duly objects to the



order and that objection is not withdrawn, then, if the Secretary of State relies on the


25
modification made by an order under this paragraph, he shall not confirm the compulsory



purchase order without a modification excluding the dwelling-house from that order.



(4) In this paragraph "dwelling-house" means any building or part of a building



in which a person is residing, and includes any other building or part of a building in



which a person normally resides but from which he is temporarily absent.


30
(5) In relation to the Scottish Act of 1947, this paragraph shall have effect as if, in



sub-paragraph (1) above, for the reference to section 12(1) of the Act of 1971 there were



substituted a reference to section 10(1) of the Scottish Act of 1972'.

goes on every day of the week, and that will continue to happen.

Amendment agreed to:

Amendments made: No. 296, in page 54, line 40, at end insert—
'(2) The modifications made by paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 below shall have effect unless—

(a) the land comprised in the compulsory purchase order is development land, and
(b) the order contains a certificate to that effect.

(3) A certificate under sub-paragraph (2) above shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated in it'.

No. 96, in line 42, after second 'the', insert 'Scottish'.—[Mr. John Silkin.]

Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 98, in page 55, line 2, leave out 'paragraphs' and insert 'paragraph'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this we are to take the following amendments:
Government Amendments Nos. 100, 102, 106.
Government Amendment No. 108, in page 56, line 45, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 12 on page 57 and insert—
No 108(b), in line 18, after '(2)', insert
'An order made under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall not apply'.
No. 108(c), in line 20, leave out from 'withdrawn' to end of line 21.
No. 108(d), in line 22, after '(3)', insert
'An order made under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall not apply'.
No. 108(e), in line 24, leave out from 'withdrawn' to end of line 26 and insert
'unless the Secretary of State refuses to confirm the compulsory purchase order except with a modification excluding the dwellinghouse therefrom'.
Government Amendment No. 109.

Mr. Silkin: The Bill as introduced gave the Secretary of State unfettered discretion in deciding whether or not to hold a public inquiry or hearing into objections to a compulsory purchase order under Clause 18 of the Bill. I made it clear on Second Reading that guidelines for the operation of this discretion would be laid down. I said that I had it in mind, in particular, that it should not be necessary to hold a public inquiry where a planning inquiry had already taken place.
The Opposition put down a considerable number of amendments to this provision in Standing Committee. After considering these amendments, and after consultation with the Council on Tribunals, the Government brought forward amendments in Committee which had the effect of writing into the legislation the guidelines that I had referred to and always intended should be used. The major provisions added by the Government amendments were the new paragraphs 4A and 4B to be inserted into Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land Acts by paragraph 3 of the schedule.
In Committee I made it clear that I had it in mind to introduce further amendments. In dealing with questions about the position of residential owner-occupiers, for example, I indicated that I would consider writing into the Bill special safeguards for the position of such occupiers.
The Government have considered the position further in the light of discussion in Committee, and there have been further consultations with the Council on Tribunals. These amendments, which

also fulfil the undertaking concerning the position of residential owner-occupiers, are the result.
The effect of the Bill as amended in Committee is broadly as follows. The Secretary of State may dispense with an inquiry or hearing where the planning status of the land has been settled in one of the following ways: (a) by the grant of planning permission by the Secretary of State; (b) by an allocation in an adopted or approved local plan; and (c) where there is no adopted or approved local plan, by an old-style development plan, by a draft structure plan, or by a local or non-statutory plan, which has been subject to adequate public participation procedures.
The Bill does, however, provide for the possibility of returning to a position of unfettered discretion, by means of an affirmative resolution order under paragraph 4B.
The major effect of the amended provisions is to remove draft and non-statutory plans from the main provision and to put them on a "reserve" basis as in the previous paragraph 4B, and to do away altogether with the concept of an unfettered discretion.
Amendments Nos. 100 and 102 qualify the discretion concerning the holding of public inquiries or hearings broadly in the way proposed in the old paragraph 4A(1)—that is to say, they enable the Secretary of State to rely on a planning permission granted by himself after an inquiry, on an adopted or approved local plan, or, where no such local plan exists, on the development plan. The only modification here is that it is now made clear in (a) of the new subparagraph 2A that in the case of a planning permission granted by the Secretary of State there must actually have been a public inquiry for the permission to qualify.
Amendments Nos. 106 and 108, apart from the first four lines of No. 106, which belong with the previous amendments, set out the new provisions concerning draft local plans and non-statutory plans.
The provisions as set out in the amendments represent a compromise that is acceptable to the Council on Tribunals, though it still has reservations on two points—the status of structure plans, and the circumstances in which the "reserve" power in paragraph 4 might be used.
I should like to make clear the decision we have reached with the Council on Tribunals.
The Council has all along maintained that the provisions in Schedule 4 should be such as to ensure that land is not acquired compulsorily without the owner, lessee or occupier having, or having had, an effective opportunity of challenging the proposed acquisition at an inquiry or hearing. It was in the light of this view, among other things, that I introduced in Committee amendments which are now incorporated in the Bill.
I should like to set the record straight on the Council's view of these amendments. In introducing them I said that the proposals in paragraph 4A(1)(a) and (b)—those dealing with planning permissions and adopted local plans—were thought to be acceptable to the Council. But later on, following an intervention by the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham), I may have given the impression that the Council was satisfied with the whole of paragraph 4A. In fact, the Council did not feel able to agree with the provisions concerning draft structure or local plans for non-statutory plans which had been through public participation.
I do not believe that the Committee was misled because it had heard my earlier statement, and recognised that the later reference was simply a badly chosen use of words. But the statement that the Council was content with paragraph 4A has, of course, appeared—belatedly because of troubles with which we are all familiar—in Hansard, and I ought, therefore, to set the record straight.
I should add that the Council does now accept, subject to some points of detail, that the amendments now brought forward represent a compromise that is acceptable to it. I am grateful to the Council for the co-operative attitude that it has shown in arriving at this common view.

Mr. Michael Latham: Could the right hon. Gentleman answer the question which I asked on a previous amendment, when he said that he would defer the answer until we reached this amendment; namely, whether the Council has given its blessing to the certification procedure contained in Amendment No. 296?

Mr. Silkin: I had put the answer aside and left it on the Dispatch Box. The answer is that there was no discussion specifically with the Council on Tribunals, but the Council has accepted the general position, and these amendments only take things out of the special procedures.

Mr. Rossi: I tried to follow what the right hon. Gentleman was saying, and I hope he will forgive me if I did not get it completely right because of the lateness of the hour.
Was I correct in understanding the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Council on Tribunals still has reservations at this stage on the question of structure or on the reserve powers, or is it now completely satisfied on those two points? Could the right hon. Gentleman answer that before I proceed any further?

Mr. Silkin: The Council has some doubts about it, but it accepts that this is a compromise view.

Mr. Rossi: I am not surprised that there are still doubts about this matter. What is the situation as we are having it explained to us now? It is that where there have been planning procedures under a structure plan, the Secretary of State may deny a public inquiry to a private citizen who has had a compulsory purchase order served upon him. The basis for the denial of a public inquiry on a compulsory purchase order is that there has been some kind of public participation on the structure plan, that there has already been an inquiry and, therefore, the citizen concerned should not expect to have another inquiry when he has his compulsory purchase order.
1 a.m.
In practical terms, what protection does the procedure on a structure plan afford the citizen? What happens when a structure plan is published and the public are invited to go along to the town hall and be told about it, make representation, and listen to the experts? How many private citizens, for example, went along to County Hall across the river when the Greater London development plan was being investigated and discussed before Layfield for however long it was—18 or 24 months?
The situation in relation to a structure plan is much the same, because the people interested in a structure plan are


the professionals, the planners themselves, the amenity bodies, the public utility people, the transport people—London Transport in the case of London—British Rail, the statutory undertakers and so on, all of which have land which may be affected by a structure plan which determines tthe land use in a particular area. But for John Smith living in No. 10 Acacia Avenue it is all esoteric and of little interest. He will not pay a planner, a solicitor or a member of the Bar to attend the inquiry day after day, month after month, just to be told at the end of the day that there has been general zoning under the structure plan which may or may not affect him.
The ordinary citizen will be interested in what happens when the compulsory purchase order drops on his door mat—not before—and all the other business of a structure plan inquiry is of no use to him. It is cold comfort for him to be told when the compulsory purchase order arrives, "We are terribly sorry, but you cannot have a public inquiry into this. You cannot complain to that extent, because you should have sent somebody along to represent your interests on the structure plan."
No wonder the Council on Tribunals has reservations, and grave reservations, I should imagine. What the right hon. Gentleman has put to us is no answer—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), who is muttering from a sedentary position, knows very well what the situation is. Whether or not we have a Division does not affect the argument. If he thinks that our case is wrong, let him get to his feet and answer it. Let us hear from him a rebuttal of the argument which I am putting. Let us hear the logic of his argument. Let us hear what he has to say about the rights of private citizens in the sort of situation I am describing. If he has the courage to get to his feet and answer the argument, we shall welcome it. But let him not gibe across the Chamber, half lying on his back—

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: Get on with it.

Mr. Rossi: We can carry on to a late hour if that is the way hon. Members opposite wish to behave. Those who sat

on the Committee know that we have plenty of stamina in such situations, and we can carry on to a late hour.
I ask the House now to return to the serious argument and to ignore the irrelevancies, absurdities and petty remarks of certain hon. Members opposite. Let us deal with the rights of the private citizen, which is what concerns us and concerns the Council on Tribunals. The Council has reservations, and we have reservations, and the right hon. Gentleman has not satisfied us on the point at all. These are autocratic powers taking from the ordinary individual the protection which hitherto the law of the land has afforded him.
The Minister says that we have made extreme statements about the effects of the Bill, but the Council on Tribunals agrees without reservations as to the effect which the legislation will have on the rights of citizens.

Mr. John Silkin: It is a compromise.

Mr. Rossi: It is not a compromise by any means when a citizen is left without a right of appeal or public inquiry into a compulsory purchase order on his property, with the excuse that at some time or other at his town hall some planning jamboree took place—a jamboree which to that person in question at the time was of little or no interest. Labour Members should talk to their constituents about these matters. How many of them wish to discuss structure plans? How many of them will have lawyers to fight these matters on their behalf?

Mr. Corbett: The hon. Gentleman should know that one can take a horse to water but cannot make it drink. If we followed the hon. Gentleman's sentiments, no planning decisions would ever be made. It does him no credit to criticise those who do not take part in the democratic process. The logic of the hon. Gentleman's arguments is that we should never make planning decisions but should keep the options open for ever. That argument is totally illogical.

Mr. Rossi: I am not criticising those who do not go to structure plan meetings, nor do I expect the ordinary citizen to spend his time at discussions of structure plans at town halls. The citizen wants to get on with his life. My argument is that that man does not go to those


meetings because they are of little interest to him at that stage. However, I believe that he should be given a full and proper opportunity to be involved when a matter touches him and concerns him personally. That point is the time at which a compulsory purchase order is made in respect of his property. He should then be given a full opportunity for a public inquiry—and that opportunity is now being denied him.
I wish to ask the Minister about the wording of the paragraph and the way in which it is now to be amended. If we refer to page 55 of the Bill, line 10, we see that
…the confirming authority may if it considers it expedient to do so, and shall if paragraph 2A applies "—
I am there picking up Government Amendment No. 100—
(a) cause a public local inquiry to be held, or
(b) afford to any person by whom an objection has been duly made as aforesaid and not withdrawn, an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the confirming authority for the purpose.
So far as we can see, paragraphs (a) and (b) offer an alternative to the Secretary of State. He can either order a public inquiry, or he can afford to the individual concerned the opportunity of being heard by some person appointed by the Secretary of State in private. So there is an option there. A public inquiry does not necessarily follow.
What is the obligation created by Amendment No. 100? I assume that it is for the Minister to exercise his discretion either to hold a public inquiry or to have a private hearing. In that context it does not seem that the provision will carry us much farther forward, because all that the amendment says is that there shall be an option to do one thing or the other applies and we are still left with the situation that it is possible for there to be no public inquiry. Will the right hon. Gentleman assist us to interpret the meaning of these words?

Mr. Budgen: A structure plan has three main characteristics. It deals, first, with general propositions as to the proposals of a planning nature for an area. It cannot deal with individual plots, nor with the circumstances of individual plot owners. Secondly, it is an extremely expensive procedure. It is no secret that

members of the planning Bar are among the most highly paid of those who are professionally involved in this area.

Mr. Corbett: They are over-paid.

Mr. Budgen: It may be that they are over-paid.

Mr. Corbett: There is no £6 limit for them.

Mr. Budgen: No. I agree that there is a free market in wages for them. It is in everybody's interests that structure plans should remain of a general nature, otherwise inquiries like the Layfield Inquiry, if they have to inquire into the circumstances of each house and each individual house owner, will go on not for 18 months but for 18 years.
Thirdly, structure plans necessarily must look towards the future and take a broad sweeping view of what will happen to wide areas. They cannot deal with the circumstances of individual plot owners. Indeed, if some system is injected into the structure plan procedure by which individual house owners are informed in advance that this may be the only time at which they can object to the plans for their homes, the whole nature of structure plans will change and what started as a sensible broad sweep planning inquiry will end up as being no more than the bringing together of a vast number of compulsory purchase inquiries. It will be a very expensive, illogical and cumbrous procedure.
The only way is to give to the individual citizen the right in all circumstances to his own inquiry at which he makes his objections. He must be able to make objections which relate to his plot and his circumstances. It is ridiculous that he should have to make his objections at a structure plan inquiry, because he may be objecting to something which may happen in five years' time. In five years' time the granny who is living with him may be dead; his children may be grown up. All the circumstances which he would wish to advance as reasons for objecting to a compulsory purchase order may well have changed. It would be pointless for him to bring forward the details of his life at a structure plan inquiry. He can do so sensibly only at a purpose-built individual compulsory purchase inquiry just before he is required to give up possession of his


land. It is nonsense to pretend that a structure plan is in any sense an alternative forum to the right that the individual citizen should have to his own compulsory purchase inquiry.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Clegg: I had not intended to intervene in the debate until I heard the seated interjections of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk). He should be more careful when he makes remarks concerning the rights of private individuals. Let the hon. Gentleman remember that the rights of many of his constituents are being discussed. Such remarks as the hon. Gentleman made tend to make my hon. Friends go on rather longer than they otherwise would. We would welcome an intervention, of course, from the hon. Gentleman or from the hon. Members for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) or Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore). They have sat in the Chamber jabbering away like so many apes without getting up to make an intervention. They are entitled to get up and take part in the debate.

Mr. Budgen: I do not know whether my hon. Friend would agree with the description "the creaking of their jackboots"?

Mr. Clegg: I hoped to get through these proceedings without reference to jackboots, but I am glad that my hon. Friend has mentioned the matter.
This is a serious proposition, and I wish to reiterate what has been said by my hon. Friends. We all know that at a major planning inquiry into a structure plan or local plan the average working man who has his own house is not to be found in attendance. That is because he does not believe such proceedings will involve him. It is only when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) said, the compulsory purchase notice comes through the door that he realises that there is a problem to meet. Any hon. Member who has had to deal with constituency problems knows in his heart of hearts that that is correct. How many hon. Members have had their constituents come to them in such a predicament? How many hon. Members have asked "Did you not realise long before this that your position was threatened?"

They reply "No, of course we did not." There are reservations about these matters, and it is appropriate that they have been voiced tonight.

Mr. Michael Latham: One of the reasons for us being in this difficult position, apart from the fact that we should not be considering such important matters as this in the middle of the night, is that the Labour Party never intended that there should be compulsory purchase proceedings. When it first drew up its proposals in Opposition it did not appreciate that there was no way to bring about a major amount of acquisition of public land except by taking over every plot by compulsory purchase. It realised with horror that if that was to be so there would be many public inquiries and it would be years and years before any land passed into public ownership as nobody would sell their land willingly on the basis of the compensation payable.
The Labour Party came to the conclusion that if that were so it would get round the problem by taking away the right of a public inquiry. At that point it ran into trouble with the Council on Tribunals. Although the Minister gave a courteous reply to the House, as he always does, he did not deal fully and fairly with the fact that the Council on Tribunals has by no means wholly agreed with the amendments that he has brought forward. It has said that they are compromises.
We must understand that this is a serious matter. The House set up the Council on Tribunals to be the public watchdog on exactly this sort of matter—namely, administrative inquiries and tribunals. The House cannot be continually looking at the conduct of individual inquiries. The late Mr. Richard Cross-man had to face a censure debate when he overrode the findings of the Council over the Packington Estate in Islington back in 1965. It was a difficult and strongly worded debate. The Minister manifestly does not have the full support of the Council on these matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), not wishing to prolong the debate, did not mention the comments of Justice.
The amendments tabled are still defective. I draw attention particularly to


Amendment No. 102 standing in the name of the Secretary of State, subsection (a) of which states:
that planning permission for relevant development is in force in respect of the land comprised in the order".
When I first read this in one of the consultation papers the Government circulated to members of the Committee I immediately wrote by the side:
Change of use? Different density?
Justice has made exactly the same point. In its latest memorandum it says:
A further reason why the amendments do not achieve their object is that the development referred to an paragraph 3(2A)(a), (b) and (c) is described simply as 'relevant development' not 'the relevant development'. 'Relevant development' is all development except such as may be excluded by ministerial order…no major exclusions are at present proposed so this, in effect, means any development. The result is, to take an example, that in the case of a compulsory purchase order under the Bill for industrial development a public inquiry can be dispensed with if the land is shown in the develoment plan as zoned for residential purposes or vice versa.
This seems to be such an obvious error that I am amazed that the Government have not rectified it. What they are trying to do is to say that if someone has had the chance to put his case as to why his land should not be zoned for housing, then, when the land is zoned for housing, there does not need to be another inquiry. I do not agree with that, but it is the Government's position. But they have so worded the Bill that if, at the public inquiry stage into, say, a structure plan, the question was whether the land should be zoned for housing and it was subsequently decided to re-zone it for, say, industrial purposes, there would be no right of public inquiry for the individual.
That seems to be an utterly disgraceful situation which can be amended by leaving out the word "the" as Justice has proposed.
The structure plan has been referred to. I wish to add that the Town and Country Planning Act, 1968, which was piloted through the House by Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, was specifically designed so as not to have private individuals discussing their circumstances at structure plan hearings. That was the whole purpose of the Act, to have a two-tier planning system. It was to emphasise that that my right hon. Friend the Mem-

ber for Crosby (Mr. Page) took through this House the Town and Country Planning Act 1971—to try to prevent situations like the Layfield Inquiry ever arising again.
Amendment No. 108 deals with the subject of non-statutory plans and matters which have just had a general public consultation but have not actually been approved by the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman says in his guidance notes:
Where this procedure was in operation the Secretary of State would not be able to dispense with an inquiry or hearing when he was dealing with an objection from a residential occupier.
I entirely agree that residential occupiers should in no circumstances have their houses taken away without a right to a public inquiry. I think it is wrong to limit that to residential occupiers. What about farmers or business men? No one should have their land taken away from them without the chance to have their case properly and fairly heard. That is the crux of the opposition to these proposals.
The right hon. Gentleman has said, with regard to certain amendments dealing with charities, that he has not got them right yet and so has not tabled them. They will go to another place. The Council on Tribunals is not fully happy with these amendments. There is still time to reconsider them and to have more public debate on the matter. I suggest that the amendments be withdrawn and tabled in a better form in another place.

Mr. Graham Page: The Minister will have to take this matter back and think about it. I know that he has made some effort to meet the objections, not only from those of us on the Committee or those who took part in the Second Reading debate but objections from powerful outside sources. I refer not only to legal sources but to those who consider the constitution and civil liberties. The idea that it is sufficient to give someone who is having his property taken away from him by compulsory acquisition the opportunity to put some case at an inquiry into a structure plan is wrong.
As my hon. Friends have said, there is no detailed inquiry on a structure plan. The structure plan is intended merely to set down the general strategy for development of an area. As the Minister


knows, the instructions issued from his Department on how a structure plan inquiry should be conducted provide that the Secretary of State chooses the issues to be discussed at an inquiry on that plan. It is not an inquiry into all the plan. It is an inquiry into the major issues, and those are chosen by the Secretary of State. There is no question of anyone being able to discuss his plot or even his estate, if he is lucky enough to have one, within the structure plan area. So not only is the structure plan inquiry inadequate; it is not an inquiry into a person's property or the acquisition of that property.
The inquiry into the local plan goes much more into detail, and it may be that the individual would have an opportunity at a local inquiry into a local plan to raise objections to his own plot being within a compulsory purchase area. But, even so, I doubt whether that would be satisfactory. If we are to rely on any general inquiry to satisfy the individual's right to inquiry, it would have to be an inquiry into an action area. I do not know how many of those will be made throughout the country in the next few years, but I imagine not all that number, and certainly not covering the whole country.
Then we come to the case where there has been no development plan at all—neither a structure plan, nor a local plan, nor a consideration of an action area. This is the case where there has been publication of the intentions of the local authority for the development of its area on an informal basis. Sometimes the local population join in with that and there is a very satisfactory inquiry as to the development of that parish or small town. But again there is no satisfactory inquiry into individual plots and no opportunity for the individual to say why his land is not development land or why it is not land needed for development and, therefore, coming within compulsory purchase.
I hope that the Minister will take this debate to heart. This is not destructive of his Bill. It may be that in too many cases the Opposition have tried to be constructive to the Bill. We have declared our abhorrence of the Bill but, if we have to have it, we have tried

to make it as reasonable as possible. In this case, we are repeating words from very reasonable sources outside this House. My hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) quoted Justice, which is a very formidable organisation. But it is not only from there that objections to this procedure have come. Why cannot the Minister return to the normal procedure for compulsory purchase inquiries? He would lose nothing by it. He would gain tremendous respect outside the House.

Mr. John Silkin: I listened with enormous interest to the debate and the points raised by the Opposition, although they seemed to be slightly off key.
I begin with the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham). He quoted Justice, and this was taken up by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). Neither of them bothered to point out that justice moves very slowly in this country and that Justice's objections to the Bill were based on the Bill unamended—

Mr. Michael Latham: Not true.

Mr. Silkin: It is true. The Justice comment is based on the situation before the excepted development changes. There will now be significant exceptions from relevant development.
Then let us take the Council on Tribunals. The hon. Gentleman said that this House had appointed the council as a watch dog. I might remind the hon. Gentleman that it is a good idea if you have a watch dog not to bark yourself. The Council on Tribunals is broadly content with the Bill as it is proposed to be amended, and it has said so.
The question of the structure plan was raised, but the right hon. Member for Crosby and most hon. Gentlemen answered their own points and those of the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi). They gave the hon. Member for Hornsey in part, at least, the very answer that my right hon. Friend gave to the Council on Tribunals; namely, that the structure plan is not a detailed plan except very occasionally.
1.30 a.m.
The struture plan is an over-lay on the old style plan until we get the new structure and local plans. The structure plan


is intended to be diagrammatic. I remember the right hon. Gentleman giving a lecture in Oxford in which he explained in minute detail how it was quite wrong that the structure plan in general terms could be anything other than diagrammatic. It could not give detailed points. He said that the local plan gave the detailed points, but he went on to say that there were occasions—just a few—when a structure plan was fairly detailed. It did not happen very often, but occasion ally it did. On most occasions the structure plan was diagrammatic. Of course, this is a comprehensive provision. My right hon. Friend has to be satisfied—

Mr. Graham Page: Mr. Graham Page rose—

Mr. Silkin: The right hon. Member for Crosby and many of his hon. Friends have done a lot of talking. It seems to me that I should be allowed to have two minutes in which to answer them. That is all I require, and then the right hon. Gentleman, by leave of the House, can come back.
It seems reasonable that, in including the planning basis, my right hon. Friend should include the structure plan. Of course he says "If I am not satisfied that it develops the situation in sufficient detail"—in 999 cases out of 1,000 it will not—"I shall not confirm it". That is precisely the case and the argument that we put forward to the Council on Tribunals. Hon. Gentlemen have answered themselves and also the hon. Member for Hornsey. In all my life I have rarely come across such unanimity throughout the House.
We are all agreed that the structure plan is not, in general terms, the basis for sufficient delineation. However, the right hon. Member for Crosby—not the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen)—put his finger on the matter because he fairly said that it is the local plan that one would go to. He went on to say "Mind you, I happen to believe that a man's plot, as it were, should be protected for himself." I understand that point. We differ in the sense that this Bill is about the public ownership of development land. The right hon. Gentleman prefers private ownership. That is a fair difference between us.
The right hon. Gentleman was equally fair to me when he pointed out that it is on the local plan, not the structure plan, that one would look for the detail. As I have said, there will be occasions when some elements of some structure plans may be sufficiently detailed for the Secretary of State to be able to say, "Yes. I shall confirm", but in general he will not do so. That is what we told the Council on Tribunals, and that is why I suspect, among other reasons, that the Council is broadly content with our proposals.

Mr. Graham Page: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, how does any owner of property get to the Secretary of State to persuade him that the proper inquiry was not made on the structure plan? The Secretary of State can make this decision without hearing anybody and thereby deprive the individual of his right to an inquiry.

Mr. Silkin: I had not expected the right hon. Gentleman to ask me that question, particularly at 1.35 in the morning, because he has much better and earlier experience than I have. He knows that structure plans come to the Secretary of State for modification, approval and disapproval. He knows in what respect they are or are not detailed. I recall again that admirable lecture which the right hon. Gentleman gave at Oxford in which he pointed out that structure plans will differ from county to county, and they will. In some areas they will literally almost be on one sheet of notepaper, so lacking in definition will they be, and in others they will be much more defined. But the Secretary of State will know to what extent they are or are not so well defined that they can be used as the basis for saying that there has been sufficient inquiry.
My feeling—I am sure that it is the Secretary of State's feeling, too—is that this will happen only in the rarest of cases. What we have been discussing for the past 40 minutes is so rare that it is unlikely to happen perhaps in a generation. But it might. Therefore, it is wise to protect ourselves in the legislation. I repeat: the chances of it happening are extremely rare.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 100, in page 55, line 11, leave out 'paragraph 4A' and insert 'sub-paragraph (2A)'.—[Mr. John Silkin.]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Rossi: No doubt 140 Labour Members are wondering why they are not home in bed at this moment. But that is a matter for them entirely.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 167, Noes. 15.

Division No. 333.]
AYES
[1.38 a.m.


Allaun, Frank
Grant, John (Islington C)
Ogden, Eric


Armstrong, Ernest
Grocott, Bruce
O'Halloran, Michael


Atkinson, Norman
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Ovenden, John


Bates, Alf
Hardy, Peter
Owen, Dr David


Bean, R. E.
Harper, Joseph
Palmer, Arthur


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Park, George


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hatton, Frank
Parry, Robert


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Pavitt, Laurie


Booth, Albert
Heffer, Eric S.
Phipps, Dr Colin


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hooley, Frank
Price, William (Rugby)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Horam, John
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Buchan, Norman
Huckfield, Les
Rooker, J. W.


Buchanan, Richard
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N)
Rowlands, Ted


Campbell, Ian
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Sedgemore, Brian


Canavan, Dennis
Hunter, Adam
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Carmichael, Neil
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Carter, Ray
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Cartwright, John
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Sillars, James


Clemitson, Ivor
John, Brynmor
Silverman, Julius


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Skinner, Dennis


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Small, William


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Snape, Peter


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Judd, Frank
Spearing, Nigel


Crawshaw, Richard
Kaufman, Gerald
Stallard, A. W.


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Kelley, Richard
Strang, Gavin


Cryer, Bob
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Swain, Thomas


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Kinnock, Neil
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Lambie, David
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Davidson, Arthur
Lamborn, Harry
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Lamond, James
Tierney, Sydney


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Tinn, James


Deakins, Eric
Leadbitter, Ted
Tomlinson, John


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Loyden, Eddie
Urwin, T W.


Dempsey, James
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Dormand, J. D.
McCartney, Hugh
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McElhone, Frank
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Dunn, James A.
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Ward, Michael


Eadle, Alex
Maclennan, Robert
Watkins, David


Edge, Geoff
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Weetch, Ken


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
McNamara, Kevin
Wellbeloved, James


English, Michael
Madden, Max
White, James (Pollok)


Ennals, David
Mahon, Simon
Whitehead, Phillip


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Marks, Kenneth
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Flannery, Martin
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Meacher, Michael
Wise, Mrs. Audrey


Ford, Ben
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Woof, Robert


Forrester, John
Millan, Bruce
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E. Kilbride)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)



Freeson, Reginald
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


George, Bruce
Newens, Stanley
Mr. David Stoddart and


Gould, Bryan
Noble, Mike
Mr. Tom Pendry.


Graham, Ted
Oakes, Gordon





NOES


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Budgen, Nick
Penhaligon, David
Weatherill, Bernard


Clegg, Walter
Raison, Timothy



Fairgrieve, Russell
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Mr. W. Benyon and


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Sainsbury, Tim
Mr. Fred Silvester


Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

I beg to move Amendment No. 101, in page 55, line 13, leave out subparagraph (b).

During the discussion on the last amendment, I asked the right hon.


Gentleman to explain line 10 on page 55, as amended by Amendment No. 100. It seemed to us that it gave him an option either to hold a public inquiry or—

Mr. John Silkin: I must apologise. I had meant to deal with it, but I was diverted. Those are the words of the 1946 Act and have been right the way through.

Mr. Rossi: I was not criticising but merely introducing the amendment because it should give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity to explain the situation. For him to say that he has followed the 1946 precedent does not carry the matter much further. Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain the 1946 precedent, if he wishes to explain it. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order.

Mr. Rossi: Labour Members seem to want to get back to the bar. Perhaps it would be of help to them if they did.
Will the right hon. Gentleman explain in more detail than he did in his last intervention why there should be an option of either holding a public inquiry or an inquiry in public? In one instance it is discretionary for him to do so and in another instance, under paragraph 3(2) it is mandatory upon him to exercise discretion. It is not perfectly clear why that should be the case. Therefore, the objective of Amendment No. 101 is to remove from the paragraph the situation whereby the inquiry takes place in private behind closed doors.
Conservative Members believe that it is undesirable that in circumstances in which a private citizen's rights are being affected and in which he is being subjected to a compulsory purchase order the Secretary of State should have the discretion of ordering that his protests be dealt with simply behind closed doors. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take this opportunity of giving us a more detailed explanation of the meaning of this paragraph.

Mr. Oakes: My right hon. Friend the Minister explained in his brief intervention to the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) that this clause and procedure

had been in existence since the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946. Neither Labour Members nor Conservative Members when in Government in all the planning Acts that they introduced ever sought to come before the House and change it.
I shall explain to the House the different procedures. Before doing so, lest the Opposition should suspect in any way that the Secretary of State intends to opt for hearings behind closed doors rather than public inquiries, it can be stated categorically that there is no intention to depart from the present practice. When the Secretary of State is required to hold an inquiry or hearing or in other circumstances in which he considers it expedient to do so, his choice will be an inquiry unless there are exceptional reasons why a hearing would be more suitable. The difference between the two is that at a hearing only the statutory operators—that is, objecting owners, lessees and occupiers—would be invited to attend and be heard. A public local inquiry is open to the general public, and persons other than statutory objectors can also attend and, at the inspector's discretion, be heard.
It is rare that a hearing, as distinct from a public inquiry, is held. There are conceivable circumstances in which the Secretary of State, who is responsible to this House, may wish to invoke the procedures laid down under the 1946 Act. This is all that the amendment is about.
I ask my hon. Friends to resist the amendment if, as I do not suspect it will be, it is pressed by the Opposition.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: No. 102, in page 55, line 16, at end insert—
(2A) This sub-paragraph applies unless the confirming authority is satisfied either—

(a) that planning permission for relevant development is in force in respect of the land comprised in the order, and that the planning permission was granted by the confirming authority after a public local inquiry; or
(b) where a local plan for the district in which the land is situated has been adopted or approved under Part II of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, that the grant of planning permission for relevant development in respect of the land comprised in the order would be in accordance with the provisions of that plan; or


(c) where no such plan has been so adopted or approved, that the grant of planning permission for relevant development in respect of the land comprised in the order would be in accordance with the provisions of the development plan."—[Mr. John Silkin.]

Mr. Oakes: I beg to move Amendment No. 103, in line 31, after 'period', insert:
'not being less than 28 days from the date of the requirement)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are taking the following amendments:
No. 104, in line 31, after 'period', insert:
'not being less than 28 days'.
No. 406, in line 32, after 'specify' insert:
'not being less than 28 days'.

Mr. Oakes: Amendment No. 104 is a similar amendment to the amendment pressed in Committee by the Opposition. The only difference between us is that Amendment No. 104 refers to a period
not being less than 28 days",
whereas the Government amendment makes the position clear by adding
from the date of the requirement".
I said in Committee that I had considerable sympathy with what the Opposition sought, and the Government amendment puts in proper form what the Opposition sought to do.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Rossi: I beg to move Amendment No. 105, in line 38, leave out sub-paragraph (b).
Here we are dealing with the grounds upon which a private citizen can object to the making of a compulsory purchase order on his own property. Paragraph 5 of the schedule states that it is no longer to be in law an objection to the making of a compulsory purchase order that the acquisition is unnecessary or inexpedient Those are the chief grounds upon which objections to compulsory purchase orders are founded today in law in most public inquiries. The Government propose to remove those grounds of objection, we feel without just cause or reason. The amendment seeks to remove that part of Schedule 4 which takes away that ground for objection so that it continues to remain available to the citizen.

Mr. Sainsbury: One reason why we need to look carefully at whether it would not be right to accept the amendment is what we have recently agreed in respect of Clause 18. In that clause as now amended an authority has power to acquire land that is necessary to facilitate development of the land which it wishes to develop. There is the difficulty of how to object to an authority's application to acquire such land if one cannot object on the ground that it is unnecessary or inexpedient. What one will be saying in that objection is that the authority does not require the land to facilitate the development of the other land which it already owns, and that is a rational, reasonable ground of objection. I do not see how one could object on any other ground.
The alternative is either to accept the amendment or to look at the circumstances of Clause 18 in another place to ensure that there are proper and reasonable grounds of objection for persons wishing to object to the exercise of the authority's powers under Clause 18.

2.0 a.m.

Mr. John Silkin: It is as well if we first understand what it is we are talking about. The hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) showed much more clearly than the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), who simply moved the amendment formally, that there was a misconception and misunderstanding. We are dealing with power to disregard objections on the ground that the acquisition of the land is unnecessary or inexpedient. It will still be open to the objector or anyone else to argue that the development for which the land is required is unnecessary or inexpedient and such an objection cannot be disregarded under this power. Let us see why we want this power.
The passing of the Community Land Bill—and I am encouraged by the enormous percentage of the population, particularly in this House, which wants the Bill to be passed, for it is something like 11 to one, which is overwhelming—so enthusiastically by the House and the country at large will constitute acceptance by Parliament that virtually all development land is to be taken into public ownership, and that ultimately development other than exempted or excepted


development is to take place only on land which is in or has passed through public ownership.
The same situation exists to this day in the new towns, where, in accordance with the objective of securing the lay-out and the development of the new town any land in its area is liable to acquisition by the development corporation. In considering a compulsory purchase order relating to land within the area of a new town, the Secretary of State, if he is satisfied that an objection is made on the ground that the acquisition—not the development—is unnecessary or inexpedient, may treat that objection as irrelevant for the purpose of making a final decision.

Mr. Sainsbury: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman because he seems to be bearing out my point. According to the explanatory note, the effect of the amendment—referring back to Clause 18—empowers the authority to find land which is not in itself suitable for development. How is one to object to such acquisition unless on the ground that it is unnecessary for the local authority to acquire it because it is not suitable for development?

Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman really must listen. I patiently explained to him that it is possible to object on the ground that the development is unnecessary or inexpedient. Let us stick to the question of acquisition.
We have decided to stick with the new town precedent. I have heard it argued that one cannot really choose the new town precedent as a valid one because there there is a planning framework, a designated area. But, of course, the position is altered in this Bill. Now we have written into it that under the Bill the acquisition must take place against the planning framework. It is therefore totally on all-fours with the new town precedent. I ask my hon. Friends, if they, as I very much doubt, are challenged in the Division Lobby, to record the same overwhelming result that they achieved last time.

Mr. Graham Page: Is the right hon. Gentleman really splitting these hairs between development and acquisition for development? He is putting to us that one can argue that the land is not needed

for development, but the whole point is to acquire it for development. Is not he arguing that the acquisition is unnecessary to achieve what one is precluded from arguing by the schedule as it stands? It is an amazing argument that one can say, "No, I cannot argue on the basis that the acquisition is unnecessary but I can argue on the basis that the development is unnecessary." But under Clause 17 and 18 acquisition is for the purpose of development. Surely that is the same point.

Mr. John Silkin: Mr. John Silkin indicated dissent.

Mr. Graham Page: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Will he then put into the Bill what he has been telling the House, so that he makes certain that we can object to compulsory purchase orders on the basis that they are unnecessary?

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: No. 106, in page 56, line 6, leave out from beginning to 'In' in line 37 and insert '(8)'.

No. 108, in page 56, line 45, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 12 on page 57 and insert—
'(2) In relation to the Scottish Act of 1947, the paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 set out above shall have effect as if for the reference to the Act of 1971 there were substituted a reference to the Scottish Act of 1972 and for the reference to paragraph 3(1)(b) of Schedule 1 there were substituted a reference to paragraph 3(b) of Schedule 1.
4.—(1) If the Secretary of State considers it necessary to do so in the public interest, he may from time to time by order direct that for such period (not exceeding five years) as may be specified in the order the paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 set out above shall have effect as if the references to the development plan in sub-paragraph (2A)(c) included references—

(a) to any local plan which has been prepared by the local planning authority and as respects which the purposes of paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 12(1) of the Act of 1971 (publicity in connection with the preparation of plans) have, in the opinion of the confirming authority, been adequately achieved by the steps taken by the local planning authority, and
(b) to any other plan which has been so prepared and as respects which, if it had been a local plan, those purposes would, in the opinion of the confirming authority, have been adequately achieved by the steps so taken.

(2) Where the land comprised in a compulsory purchase order consists of a dwelling-house and the occupier of the dwelling-house July objects to the order and that objection is not withdrawn, the Secretary of State shall not rely on the modification made by an order under this paragraph.

(3) Where the land comprised in a compulsory purchase order comprises a dwelling-house together with other land and the occupier of the dwelling-house duly objects to the order and that objection is not withdrawn, then, if the Secretary of State relies on the modification made by an order under this paragraph, he shall not confirm the compulsory purchase order without a modification excluding the dwelling-house from that order.

(4) In this paragraph "dwelling-house" means any building or part of a building in which a person is residing, and includes any other building or part of a building in which a person normally resides but from which he is temporarily absent.

(5) In relation to the Scottish Act of 1947, this paragraph shall have effect as if, in sub-paragraph (1) above, for the reference to section 12(1) of the Act of 1971 there were substituted a reference to section 10(1) of the Scottish Act of 1972'.

No. 109, in page 57, line 16, at end insert—
'(6) An order under this paragraph shall not be made unless a draft of the order has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. John Silkin.]

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 110, in page 57, line 17, leave out paragraph 5.
The purpose of paragraph 5, if I understand it correctly, is that if the Secretary of State thinks that part of the land sought to be acquired compulsorily shall be so acquired but that another part shall not be acquired, he can make half an order and hold the sword of Damocles over the head of the owner as regards the rest of the land for an indefinite period.
Could the Minister tell us the purpose of this provision? Surely it is grossly unfair to someone who is subjected to a compulsory purchase order and who is prepared, as it were, for having the whole of his plot of land taken away from him, that when the matter goes to the Secretary of State for confirmation the Secretary of State says "No, let the local authority take half of the land." He does not say that the local authority shall not take the other half. He can say "I am thinking about the other half. I am not sure whether I will confirm the order relating to the other half." He can hold it over the man for a period of time which is not

stated in the paragraph. I cannot see the necessity for having such an unfair procedure to the unfortunate owner who is subjected to a compulsory purchase order.

Mr. Oakes: I thought that this was introduced in Standing Committee as a probing amendment; but the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), having put down an identical amendment in Committee and having probed, and having been given his answer, now puts the amendment down again on Report.
I tell the right hon. Gentleman once again that this has a respectable history going back to 1947 and was, incidentally, included in his planning Act of 1971. The reason for this order is that there can be instances—they would be very rare—where part of the land is urgently and obviously needed for development, but another part of the land less so because planning considerations have yet to be considered.
This provision in the schedule allows for the Secretary of State to confirm the urgent part and to leave in abeyance the other part. Were it not so, the whole lot would be subject to considerable delay, including the urgent matter, while the Secretary of State considered the less urgent or less obvious matter.
What I will say to hon. Members opposite if they are so concerned about this matter, even though it has this long history in planning legislation, is that we will be prepared to issue an administrative direction to local authorities. We give this assurance, that an administrative guide line for the exercise of the power would indicate that it is to be used only where a compulsory purchase order has been the subject of an inquiry or hearing, and then only in the most exceptional circumstances. Those exceptional circumstances can arise. That is why this power has been included in legislation for the best part of 30 years.

Mr. Graham Page: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I should have preferred to see it in the Bill itself, but if those administrative directions are to be given that gives us some relief from the effect of the clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Clegg: I beg to move Amendment No. 111, in page 57, line 29, at end insert—
'(2) If no notice to treat has been served upon the owner of the land in question within three months of the confirmation of any compulsory purchase made in pursuance of this Act, then the owner may give the acquiring authority notice that he requires a Notice to Treat and at the expiration of the month from the service of such notice by the owner the Notice to Treat shall be deemed to have been served by the acquiring authority'.
I have always felt that our proceedings on the Community Land Bill have been better in the early hours of the morning. I can barely remember the discussions which took place in daylight, but those in the deep hours of the night stick in my mind, as, I am sure, they stick in the mind of everyone who has suffered in having anything to do with the Bill.
The purpose of the amendment is clear. As the Bill stands, the Minister will confirm an order for part of the land. The local authority will be left with part of its order confirmed and part not, and there may therefore be a tendency on the part of the authority to delay service of the notice to treat. That would be unfair on the owner, and in our view there should be a time limit within which the local authority should act.
Anybody who has been concerned with compulsory purchase orders has often been struck by the suffering caused to owners by delay in service of notice to treat after orders have been made, and the amendment is designed to cure that evil.

Mr. Oakes: The amendment is technically defective, but I do not oppose it merely on that ground. The hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) will remember that this matter was raised in Committee, and I draw his attention to Government Amendment No. 304, which we shall shortly reach, which reduces the period to 12 months.
An amendment to the same effect as the one now before us was withdrawn in Committee, after my right hon. Friend had undertaken, without commitment, to consider the arguments advanced in support of a shorter period. Again I draw attention to our Amendment No. 304. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his amendment. We cannot accept that, as a general rule, authorities should be forced to the notice to treat stage in

any period less than 12 months, but it should be remembered that residential occupiers and others in statutory blight cases will be able to arrive at that stage much earlier since they are entitled to serve blight notices as soon as the making of a compulsory purchase order has been published, without waiting for the order to be confirmed.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that a lot of his argument is met by the reduced period provided for in our Amendment No. 304. Certainly his argument in Committee is.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: No. 297, in page 58, line 20, leave out '(1) and (7)'.—[Mr. Harry Ewing.]

Amendment made: No. 113, in Schedule 4, in page 59, line 34 leave out 'its' and insert 'their'.—[Mr. Oakes.]

2.15 a.m.

Mr. Rossi: I beg to move Amendment No. 114, in page 59, line 43, at end insert
'but shall not be given until after the proposal and any objections thereto have been heard at a public inquiry and the Secretary of State has been advised of the proceedings at such inquiry'.
We are now dealing with Part III of Schedule 4 which relates to the extinction of certain rights over land on acquisition by a local authority under its power in Part III of the Act.
The Secretary of State is given the power in paragraph 10(2) of the schedule to supervise the exercise of those powers in as much as his consent is required before local authorities can extinguish rights over land and can take into their own ownership any apparatus on the land. The consent under paragraph 10(2) may be given
either in respect of a particular operation or in respect of operations of any class, and either subject to or free from any conditions or limitations.
The Secretary of State is given considerable powers over local authorities when they seek to extinguish certain rights over land acquisition.
Our amendment seeks to introduce another element into the process of checks and balances by requiring that there should be a public inquiry in which the parties concerned can have their


rights ventilated properly and fully, so that after the public inquiry has taken place a recommendation or report will be sent to the Secretary of State and he will then act on the advice which he receives as a result of these proceedings. It is a further check and balance that we consider to be desirable in the circumstances, and we hope that it will commend itself to the Government.

Mr. Oakes: I am afraid that the amendment is not acceptable to the Government because we do not accept that any additional proceedings are justified.
The Opposition are in many respects returning to arguments advanced in Committee. Those arguments are misconceived on two counts. First of all, there is nothing in the 1971 Act which says that before land can be acquired, either by agreement or compulsorily, or appropriated for planning purposes planning permission for its development must first have been obtained. But if a local authority proposes to acquire land compulsorily under the Planning Act, the long-established practice of the Secretary of State is not to confirm a CPO unless he is satisfied that the planning aspect has been properly covered. If land is acquired for planning purposes by agreement, it would of course be unlawful for the authority to develop it unless planning permission has been granted after any procedures applicable to the grant of such permission—including, where relevant, an inquiry—have been carried out.
However, that is not the whole point. The fact that land has been acquired, whether for planning purposes under the Planning Act or under the Bill as land which is suitable for development, does not override the need to obtain planning permission before development can be carried out. If it has not been obtained beforehand, as could be the case where acquisition was by agreement, it must be obtained subsequently. Furthermore, in both cases if the procedures precedent to the grant of planning permission involve a planning inquiry, an inquiry must be held.
I hope the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) will accept that the opportunities for owners and the general public to object to development proposals on planning grounds will be neither more

nor less for land acquired under the Bill which is proposed to be developed under the powers of paragraph 10 of Schedule 4 than for land acquired or appropriated under the Planning Act, where Section 124 of that Act applies. Therefore, it is unnecessary for the procedures proposed in the amendment to be introduced.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: No. 298, in page 64, leave out lines 14 to 23.

No. 117, in page 65, line 7, leave out from 'the' to '1947' and insert 'Scottish Act of'.—[Mr. John Silkin.]

Mr. Harry Ewing: I beg to move Amendment No. 299, in page 66, line 44, at end insert:

'Notice for some purposes as paragraph 18 but given by statutory undertakers to authority

19A.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this paragraph, where any land has been acquired by an authority under Part III of this Act and—

(a) there is on, under or over the land apparatus vested in or belonging to statutory undertakers; and
(b) the undertakers claim that development to be carried out on the land is such as to require, on technical or other grounds connected with the carrying on of their undertaking, the removal or re-siting of the apparatus affected by the development,

the undertakers may serve on the authority a notice claiming the right to enter on the land and carry out such works for the removal or re-siting of the apparatus or any part of it as may be specified in the notice.

(2) Where, after the land has been acquired as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above, development of the land is begun to be carried out, no notice under this paragraph shall be served later than 21 days after the beginning of the development.

(3) Where a notice is served under this paragraph, the authority on whom it is served may, before the end of the period of 28 days from the date of service, serve on the statutory undertakers a counter-notice stating that they object to all or any of the provisions of the notice and specifying the grounds of their objection.

(4) If no counter-notice is served under sub-paragraph (3) above, the statutory undertakers shall, after the end of the said period of 28 days, have the rights claimed in their notice.

(5) If a counter-notice is served under sub-paragraph (3) above, the statutory undertakers who served the notice under this paragraph may either withdraw it or may apply to the Secretary of State and the appropriate Minister for an order under this paragraph conferring on the undertakers the rights claimed in the notice or such modified rights as the Secretary of State and the appropriate Minister think it expedient to confer on them.

(6) Where, by virtue of this paragraph or an order of Ministers made under it, statutory undertakers have the right to execute works for the removal or re-siting of apparatus, they may arrange with the authority for the works to be carried out by the authority, under the superintendence of the undertakers, instead of by the undertakers themselves.

(7) Where works are carried out for the removal or re-siting of statutory undertakers' apparatus, being works which the undertakers have the right to carry out by virtue of this paragraph or an order of Ministers made under it, the undertakers shall be entitled to compensation from the authority.

(8) Sections 238 and 240 of the Act of 1971, or as the case may be sections 227 and 229 of the Scottish Act of 1972 (measure of compensation for statutory undertakers) shall apply to compensation under sub-paragraph (7) above as they apply to compensation under section 237(3) of the Act of 1971, or as the case may be section 226(3) of the Scottish Act of 1972'.

The effect of the amendment is to confer on statutory undertakers the right to remove their apparatus from land which has been acquired by an authority under Part III of the Bill, if the proposed development necessitates this on technical or other grounds connected with the carrying on of the undertaking.

The procedure is that the undertakers serve notice of their claim on the authority not later than 21 days after the beginning of development. If the authority serves a counter-notice of objection and agreement is not reached the undertakers may apply to the Secretary of State and the "appropriate Minister", as defined in Clause 7 for an order conferring the right claimed.

Where works for the removal or re-siting of apparatus are carried out under rights conferred by this paragraph or an order of Ministers the undertakers would be entitled to compensation from the authority in respect of any expenditure reasonably incurred in removing apparatus acquiring other apparatus and erecting buildings, together with the equivalent of any decrease in net receipts directly attributable to the removal or re-siting.

Paragraph 18 of Schedule 4, corresponds with Section 230 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and Section 219 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 allows an authority which has acquired land under Part III of the Bill to extinguish the rights of statutory undertakers in the land or require removal of their apparatus if it is satisfied that this is necessary for the purpose of carrying out any development.

Since the Bill was introduced the Government's attention has been drawn to the fact that Schedule 4 does not import the reverse provision—Section 232 of the Act of 1971 and Section 221 of the Act of 1972—under which statutory undertakers may claim rights to remove their apparatus where this is necessitated by the development.

This amendment rectifies that omission.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 300, in page 69, leave out lines 5 to 13.—[Mr. John Silkin.]

Clause 19

LAND ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT SCHEMES

Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 354, in page 17, line 11, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
(4) The Secretary of State shall decide the dates on which preparation of individual schemes should commence and be completed.
We come now to the clause dealing with what are called
Land acquisition and management schemes
which each authority is proposed to prepare for its area. Subsection (2) states that such schemes
shall be prepared, and from time to time revised, by all the authorities in the area of the county authority acting jointly.
Subsection (4) states:
The scheme shall be prepared not later than 31st December 1975, or such later date as the Secretary of State may agree in any particular case.
That is wishful thinking and it would be much better if the date did not appear. During the passage of the Bill we have heard a good deal about flexibility. Some very odd things have been happening in local authorities. Recently some authorities have been advertising building land for sale. Only in the last month an authority in Sussex has been offering some for tender or auction. I know that one of the authorities in my area has over 31 sites, some of which it has had for a considerable period. It seems to have given a lot of money for some of them, and has done very little with them.
It seems unnecessary to be putting this requirement on to the authorities. In my constituency there happens to be one


planning authority dealing with three councils, but in other areas that is not the case. It is clear that what is proposed will lead to a considerable amount of extra work and additional staff appointments. I should have thought it would have been better to consider each area in order to decide whether there is a need for management schemes to be drawn up.
The clause provides that the acquisition of land by the authorities shall be done with a view to they themselves developing the land or making it available for development by others. Would it not be better to take soundings round the country to determine the position of different authorities? I know that there are some authorities in Hampshire which have no land or very little land available, but there are others that have surplus land.
Is it necessary to put this requirement on the authorities at this time? Would it not be much better to deal with the matter as the need arises? I am hoping that the Minister will consider making variations from county to county. Surely he will agree that the 31st December 1975, which is only about two months away, is not on. There is another amendment tabled by the Conservative Opposition that seeks to extend the date for a further six months, but that in itself is too short a period.

Mr. Raison: I understand the point of view of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), but on this matter I prefer my party's approach. I realise that to suggest the date of 30th June 1976 is very modest, and it may well be that it is too early a date, but I prefer that approach to what seems an arbitrary extension of the Secretary of State's power as embodied in the hon. Gentleman's amendment. We have put forward a reasonable amendment and I would have thought it was one which the Government could easily accept.
Our amendment seeks to defer by six months the date on which land acquisition and management schemes have to be prepared. The case seems to be uncontrovertible given that the Bill cannot reach the statute book, assuming it ever does, until some time in November. There is still no need for local authorities to do anything about setting up these lands until the Bill comes law. We know that many authorities have embarked on

the process, but there has been no necessity for them to do so. It is likely that others have not embarked on it, but they are in no way to blame for not having done so. After all, the Bill has been mightily contentious from the word go. There has been no certainty of it reaching the statute book this Session. If a local authority has felt no desire to embark on such an expensive business I see no reason for any blame being attached to it.
Assuming the Bill becomes law, it will reach the statute book early in November. That leaves approximately six weeks for the lands to be prepared, including the Christmas period. That is obviously an inadequate period. I recognise that this section of the Bill was debated earlier in the summer. No doubt it was the Minister's hope that it would reach the statute book very much earlier than is likely to be the case. I understand that the Minister may have felt 31st December was a reasonable date, but I am sure he now recognises that the Bill will not reach the statute book until well on in November. The date of 31st December has become quite unreasonable. I hope that the Minister will recognise that point and accept this meaningful amendment.

2.30 a.m.

Mr. John Silkin: I am afraid that I can do nothing of the sort. The fact is that local authorities—and I have been in constant consultation with them, more so than any other Minister on any other Bill in history—have been well aware of the date throughout. I am not concerned with those in other political parties—and I know some—who have tried to persuade authorities of their own political persuasion that they should not implement the lands. If they did that, on their own heads be it.
I believe that the overwhelming majority of local authorities are prepared to do this. If they are not prepared to do this by 31st December my right hon. Friend is prepared to do it for them. My right hon. Friend has quite a lot of power in this matter. Not only can he step in; he can create organisations that can step in and he can even find other local authorities—there are plenty of good local authorities all over the country—who would be prepared to step in on this basis.
I am sorry that it is early in the morning because I should like every local authority that is deliberately dragging its heels to listen to what I have to say. They know perfectly well, and have known for the past eight months or so, that this is exactly what the situation would be. I see no reason whatever to alter the date. I say to my hon. Friends that if Conservative Members want to challenge us in the Division Lobby let them do so.

Mr. Raison: By leave of the House. We have just heard a most disgraceful piece of blackmail from the Minister. If he had said that there is a power to give an extension I would have understood. That would have conceivably been a reasonable argument. He has not said that. He has resorted to vulgar blackmail and I think it is a disgrace.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 118, in page 17, line 19, at beginning insert:
'Except if and so far as the Secretary of State, on the application of all the authorities in the area of the county authority, otherwise directs, a scheme under'.
In Committee two points of view were expressed during the course of the debate on the land acquisition and management schemes. One was that the schemes should be enforceable as between the various authorities when they came to agree a scheme and the public generally, while the other point of view—held by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould)—was that they should be enforceable as between the authorities. At that time neither proposition was correct.
We have considered this matter carefully and gone as far as we can, because we want to see that the lands are preserved and not to create a legal enforce-ability in rem, that is in general terms against the public as a whole. Otherwise, where there was a disagreement of some sort any member of the public could prevent any scheme from going ahead by applying to the courts. We are proposing under this amendment, and the consequential amendment flowing from it, that where all the authorities in a particular area wish to make a land acquisition and management scheme enforceable this may be done after the Secretary of State has

considered it. It gives my right hon. Friend a certain amount of ability to look at the situation and be flexible. It also means that if there is a general wish that this should be done it can be made into an enforceable agreement. I hope my hon Friends will be satisfied with this.

Mr. Graham Page: How is the Secretary of State to give this direction? This is rather an important matter. By this direction, he will bring into operation a legal status for something which the Bill says shall have no legal status. Presumably, after this it will be enforceable as between authorities and as between individuals and the authorities—

Mr. John Silkin: No.

Mr. Graham Page: At the moment, the clause says that the section shall not create any obligation enforceable in law. By the amendment, it goes on to say that the Secretary of State, by a direction, shall make it create an obligation enforceable by law. I presume that the obligation is between authorities and between authorities and individuals. The individuals concerned and the district can say, "You have not prepared the land. I shall take action against you because you have failed in your obligation to do so." Is that what is meant? If not, what is meant by saying that the Secretary of State can direct that this section shall create an obligation enforceable in law? This is an important direction. The public will want to know. Does the Secretary of State intend to do it merely by writing a letter to the county concerned or to the county and districts concerned? Are the directions to be put in no form such as a statutory instrument? This is a very casual way to create an obligation enforceable by law. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman considers saying in another place that these directions shall be done by statutory instrument.

Mr. John Silkin: I believe that it is enforceable by the Secretary of State in respect of the authorities concerned. I think that that is the position. But when the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) passionately and eloquently presents me with a legal dilemma, I always think it wise to look at it again, just in case. I am fairly certain that I am right, but I undertake to look at it again and, if the right hon. Gentleman is correct in his


assertions, no doubt another place will be able to remedy it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. John Silkin: I know that we are all very happy here at the moment, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Nevertheless, I beg to move,
That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

PETITION

St. Paul's Infants' School, Rusthall

Mr. Patrick May hew: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition.
It is the petition of Rusthall St. Paul's Infants' School Parents' Association, its school managers, its nursery school group, Rusthall Residents' Association, the Parochial Church Council, and the residents of Rusthall, Tunbridge Wells, in the county of Kent.
The petition shows that the accommodation and essential facilities provided by Rusthall St. Paul's Infants' School building are totally inadequate to meet the needs of the increased number of children attending the school. The petitioners pray that priority be given to providing a new school building forthwith.
The necessarily bald language of the position cannot do justice to the conditions at the school. Built in the last century, by today's standards it should accommodate no more than 120 children. Last term, it had 189, and housing in Rusthall is increasing.
The school is split between two sites. There is no hall. The lavatories are too few, out of doors, out of date and often out of order. There is no dining room or kitchen. Every child, every day, has to cross the busy High Street and three other roads to get his lunch at a hall five minutes' walk away from the school building. The playground is already too small, and it is reduced further by the presence of a temporary classroom. The headmistress's room is also used as a secretary's office, the staff room for her six teachers, the television room, the library,

the music room, the sick bay, the Ml room, and for remedial work, among other school activities. There is not very much room left in it for the headmistress.
These conditions are rightly thought in Rusthall to be a scandal, and 3, 464 of my constituents have signed the petition. They include 29 county and borough councillors and among them are members of the Kent Education Committee which for years has tried to replace this school on land which has already been bought for the purpose, but they have been prevented by central Government from doing so.
It is a curious system of priorities which will provide £1, 000 million over the next five years for new comprehensive schools and yet cannot provide the money to replace—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew), but I think he knows that the speech he is making should be delivered on an Adjournment debate or on some other occasion. Tonight he can only present his petition.

Mr. Mayhew: If I have transgressed I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The immediate rebuilding of this school is the urgent and earnest prayer of the petitioners in this petition which I now beg leave to present.

To lie upon the Table.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Tom Pendry.]

CIVIL AVIATION

2.41 a.m.

Mr. Les Huckfield: I am grateful for the opportunity even at this hour to raise what I and many of my hon. Friends consider to be a very important matter which ought to have the consideration of the House, namely, the direction which the Government's policy on civil aviation appears to be taking.
I believe that those of us who witnessed that veritable welter of ministerial statements that descended upon the House


just before the Summer Recess might almost be forgiven if we almost missed the one that was made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade when he said that he was well on the way to a final decision, or at least to a fairly firm decision, as to the future of the two most important airlines serving this country, namely, British Airways and British Caledonian. 
My right hon. Friend said in that statement that he was not in favour of the policy of dual designation—that is, having British Airways and British Caledonian both flying on the same routes—and I applaud him for saying that. However, he also said that British Caledonian, as a private enterprise carrier, has made a useful contribution. I and some of my hon. Friends have doubts about that.
Perhaps the most far reaching and significant thing that my right hon. Friend said was that he felt that there was scope for a sensible and fair exchange of routes between the two airlines. I have always been an opponent of the so-called second force airline. I have never been a proponent of the mixed economy in civil aviation. I opposed the formation of British Caledonian although its way was paved by a Labour Government. I still believe that we should have only one airline, namely, British Airways.
If we go back to the beginning of British Caledonian we are forced to remember that it was a Conservative Government who finally gave their blessing to the actual birth of this new airline in a rather dramatic way, whereby British Caledonian was given a send off of some £6 million-worth of British Airways routes.
Many hon. Members opposed at that time the transfer of these routes from British Airways to British Caledonian, and in fact, if my memory serves me aright, it was the policy of the Labour Party at that time to oppose that transfer of routes. Perhaps the most significant utterance of the then Conservative Minister responsible for aviation policy was that this transfer of routes from the public to the private sector was a once-for-all transfer. It was made fairly clear at that juncture that if British Caledonian could not manage on that transfer of

routes, it would have to make up its own mind what to do about its future.
I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that the Labour Party at that time, and on several occasions since that time, made it clear to the House and the country that its policy was the transfer of those routes back to British Airways. In fact, we said that clearly and unequivocally both inside and outside this House.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is a man whose integrity I respect, and I must tell him that I appear tonight in a spirit not of condemnation, but of deep concern. I recognise that he cannot give the House the final and ultimate judgment and decision of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as the review is still taking place, but I want to convey to him the concern of myself and several of my hon. Friends about the direction which that review now appears to be taking. 
Even if this exchange of routes comes to pass and even if, as he may be tempted to say tonight, that exchange of routes may benefit both airlines, that exchange of routes represents one more piece or slice of financial assistance to British Caledonian which goes beyond the "once-for-all" declaration that was originally made when British Caledonian was set up. In other words, though it was a Conservative Minister who said that £6 million worth of route transfer to British Caledonian was a "once-for-all" transfer and was all that was to be available, here we have the rather worrying spectacle—I realise that my hon. Friend may still be in the position of presiding over the review—of a Labour Government appearing to condone or to be concerned with yet another transfer of routes to help that same private enterprise carrier.
Even if this exchange of routes goes through, will we be told that this again will be the last blood transfusion that British Caledonian will require? Will we be told that this, too, will be a "once-for-all" transfer? In fact, will we not be confronted with the same position in 12 months when British Caledonian will be coming back and perhaps another Secretary of State for Trade or another of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will be saying that this is the last kind of transfer?
I am bound to say that many of us feel that a gradual cannibalisation of British Airways is taking place simply to keep alive the fledgling private enterprise carrier, British Caledonian. Perhaps some of the forecasts which have been made and some of the portents which have already been drawn look blacker than that.
Many of us are worried that ultimately we could see the dividing up of the world into spheres of operation along the same kind of lines as Air France and UTA being public and private carriers in their country, so that we end up with a situation where British Airways and British Caledonian divide the world up between themselves.
The reason for the existence of British Airways is not to share its routes with other carriers. I have always thought that British Airways should be the national flag carrier. It is a publicly-owned flag carrier, and it ought to remain so.
However, there is an even more serious consideration. I cannot think of an airline other than British Caledonian which has had more protection and assistance. Originally, when that airline was set up, it was given £6 million-worth of public routes as a kind of transfusion. In addition, the basic purpose of the Civil Aviation Act, particularly in Clause 3, was so that British Caledonian could be kept alive. On top of that we had that famous White Paper giving policy guidance to the Civil Aviation Authority which again said that British Caledonian had to be given priority in the assignation of new routes.
Yet we are again told, or so it appears, that despite all that assistance, despite the £6 million to get the airline off the ground, despite the Civil Aviation Act ensuring its continued existence, despite the White Paper guidance saying that it ought to have priority for new routes, British Caledonian still needs further assistance. How much more assistance and inducement is private enterprise to be given, particularly by a Labour Government, when it has so demonstrably failed in civil aviation policy?
I cannot help feeling that the House needs reminding—I do not think my hon. Friend needs that much reminding—that the Edwards Report on civil aviation

policy was born at a time of completely different conditions from those which now face the country. When Edwards reported, there was a period of growth during which United Kingdom civil airlines saw about a 10 per cent. decrease increase in traffic. Last year, British airlines saw about 10 per cent. decrease in traffic, and some of the projections being made for the future are even more gloomy.
The whole background and context of civil aviation policy has changed since the issuance of the Edwards Report, and I say to my hon. Friend that, on reading between the lines, I am becoming concerned about what seems to be happening in this civil aviation policy review. It now seems that although the context in which the policies that were recommended by the Edwards Report has changed, we still seem to have the possibility that British Airways and British Caledonian may be asked to partition Central and East Africa and parts of South America between themselves.
In fact, it may even be that if this exchange of routes goes one way—and again I am reading between the lines—we shall have the situation that British Airways is asked to yield to British Caledonian routes in South America in exchange for routes in Africa. I do not believe that that kind of exchange could be beneficial to British Airways, because that would again deprive British Airways of the possibility of the worldwide coverage that it ought to have.
I am concerned to hear that one of the bargaining counters that British Caledonian appears to be using is that it might start using routes which it has been granted in the past but which until now it has never shown any sign of using What kind of a bargaining counter is this? Is it really part of the bargaining that is going on between the two airlines that British Caledonian is offering to put in the pot routes which it never intends to use? It seems to me that in the bargaining that is taking place many things could happen to the detriment of British Airways.
My hon. Friend knows that the birth of Caledonian Airways was due mainly to charter flights and charter services from the West Coast of America and the Far East. If British Airways has to bear


the brunt of civil aviation regulations because it operates mainly scheduled services while British Caledonian does not have to bear the full weight of such regulations because it operates mainly charter flights, that again is something that bears unfairly on British Airways. If we are to have regulation of scheduled flights, there ought to be regulation of charter flights too because, once more, it seems that while British Caledonian will continue in comparative freedom with charter flights, British Airways will have to continue with the regulation of scheduled flights.
I recognise that my hon. Friend cannot give the House a final answer on this matter this evening. I recognise, too, that the civil aviation policy review is still proceeding apace. I want to convey my concern and that of the unions in civil aviation that a Labour Government seem to be flying in the face of a policy commitment. I know that my hon. Friend cannot yet pronounce on this policy. This party has never favoured a mixed economy in civil aviation and the whole direction in which the policy framework has been enunciated appears to be going further and further away from that policy commitment.

2.55 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) for this opportunity to enlarge on the thinking behind the statement of the Secretary of State for Trade on 29th July, when he announced his conclusions after reviewing civil aviation policy. I recognise that my hon. Friend has strongly-held and expert views on civil aviation, which he has expressed with his customary clarity, but if I were to follow him into discussing the current negotiations between British, Airways and British Caledonian, I should be in danger of frustrating their whole purpose, the achievement of a consensual and lasting approach to civil aviation problems. I am sure that he will forgive me if I do not go into too much detail. I recognise his concern. The problems he mentioned were well considered by my right hon. Friend and myself before the conclusions were announced to the House.
My hon. Friend has traced, with his considerable knowledge of the air transport industry, the course of events since the Edwards Committee's Report and

the subsequent formation of British Caledonian Airways. The policies advocated by Edwards had the general support of both sides of the House, and this was underlined in the Labour Government's White Paper "Civil Aviation Policy" of 1969.
However, as we said then, the Government would not accept that the formation of a second force airline
should be made conditional upon the transfer to it of a significant part of the Air Corporations' route networks.
This was a view we maintained later when the Tory Government transferred certain routes to British Caledonian on its establishment, notably the trunk route to West Africa.
One aim of the review of civil aviation policy we announced last December and completed this summer was therefore to consider whether reversal of these route transfers would be consistent with preserving the stability of the United Kingdom industry and enabling it to acquire the largest possible share of the world market.
I should remind the House that there was another major reason for the Government's decision that a review of civil aviation policy was needed. This lay in the changes which have taken place in the air transport market since the Edwards recommendations were adopted, and to which my hon. Friend alluded in his remarks.
The Edwards recommendations were made against a background of optimistic forecasts that during the 1970s traffic carried by United Kingdom airlines would be doubling roughly every five years. However, the air transport industry, both in the United Kingdom and worldwide, has been hard hit by the oil crisis and general recession of the last two years. Since the autumn of 1973 not only has the previous growth in traffic been halted, but most sectors of the market have experienced a serious decline in demand.
It is only right to say that British air-lines have fared better in this difficult period than most of their international competitors. But British Airways, after making profits in the first two years since the merger of BOAC and BEA, made a loss of £9½ million in 1974–75—rather less than was originally forecast and that says much in tribute to the work of


British Airways—and British Caledonian was obliged in November 1974 to make drastic cuts in its operations. In these changed economic circumstances it seemed necessary to consider whether the structure of the industry developed by civil aviation policy since Edwards still remained appropriate.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade announced the conclusions the Government had reached on the review in his statement last July. As he said then, it is difficult to draw final conclusions from the limited experience available of the advantages of maintaining two British scheduled carriers on a single international route, but it is clear that in the current and foreseeable airline operating environment there will be few, if any, routes on which we could hope to introduce a second United Kingdom carrier on terms which would enable both airlines to operate profitably, and which might enable us significantly to increase the British share of revenue on the route. Indeed, the experience of BCAL on the North Atlantic routes shows just how difficult it is for a second United Kingdom airline to challenge successfully the position of established carriers on that kind of route. One might cast some doubt upon the wisdom of British Caledonian in embarking upon that in the first place.
The Government reached the conclusion, therefore, that it no longer remains in the national interest to seek to have more than one British carrier serving any given long-haul scheduled route. For the foreseeable future it will be our policy not to license more than one British carrier on such routes. Nevertheless, after careful consideration of the evidence produced by the review we believe that it remains in the interest of United Kingdom civil aviation as a whole—it is in that respect that we have to consider it—that British Caledonian should continue as a major scheduled carrier and as a second centre of airline expertise.
It is in that respect that I have to differ from the conclusions drawn by my hon. Friend. I know perfectly well that he and some others of my hon. Friends believe that it should have been the Government's policy to absorb British Caledonian into British Airways one way or another. A number of choices were avail-

able. However, the choice between two British airlines is valued by many users of services on a number of domestic and European routes, and as British Caledonian is the major scheduled operator from Gatwick, which will in any case need to be developed rapidly as part of the Government's national airport stategy, it is right to point out that the consumer has a choice between two London airports on many routes.
A major factor which weighed extremely heavily in our considerations was the future of the 5,000 or so employees of British Caledonian at Gatwick. This is not a point to which my hon. friend alluded, although I know that he is not oblivious of this factor.
Nationalisation of British Caledonian would inevitably have been followed by its absorption into British Airways. This would have led both to dislocation of scheduled services from Gatwick and unemployment among former British Caledonian employees. Indeed, one cannot additionally fail to consider the consequential unemployment that might have followed a decline in the use of Gatwick as a result of the demise of British Caledonian.
The Government believe that there is still scope for an independent British Caledonian, and indeed the airline's staff were anxious to retain its separate identity. Although it is not within the Government's power to guarantee British Caledonian's future, in the relatively brief period of its existence it has made a worthwhile contribution to British civil aviation and the Government believe that it is right to take such action as is open to them to enable the airline to continue as a successful operator, but we do not intend to bolster British Caledonian at the expense of British Airways. We do not intend to cannibalise British Airways' route network to benefit British Caledonian.
I do not think that the parallel with Air France and UTA is any guide to the Government's intention. The situation there was quite different historically and in respect of a number of matters, and it is not our intention to pursue similar policies to those prevailing in France.
We intend that BCAL should have a sphere of influence for its long-haul


scheduled services based largely on its existing West African and South American operations. This sphere of influence, and that of British Airways, will be consolidated by a limited exchange of routes between the two which, it is hoped, will prove of mutual advantage to both, and which will be both reasonably balanced and operationally sensible. I emphasise that the exchange of routes is to be a limited one. It is an exchange of routes, not a give-away, as happened under the Tory Government in a manner which merited the condemnation of the Labour Party and which I believe to this day was utterly wrong.
I have indicated that I cannot say very much about the route rationalisation talks, but what is aimed at is that we should have a relationship with British Airways that will lead to closer co-operation between the two and, therefore, will lead to an increase in the value of the routes as far as the United Kingdom as a whole is concerned. We believe that the policy outlined by my right hon. Friend will provide British civil aviation with the right foundation from which both to meet the current pressures faced by the industry and to employ fully the opportunities which will again arise in the future when we put the present recession behind us.
Our intention has been to make changes in policy only where these are clearly needed. It is our aim to produce a policy framework for the industry which will command general support and, indeed, I hope the support also of my hon. Friends in due course when they see how the route rationalisation talks have worked out. We want the industry to be able to plan ahead for the long term with confidence in the stability of policy, which

we believe is a vital ingredient of success.
It will be necessary in the new Session for revised policy guidance for the Civil Aviation Authority to be brought before the House for approval. My right hon. Friend has already undertaken that there will be a White Paper explaining the Government's proposals. There will, therefore, be a further opportunity for debate of this important subject. At that stage the negotiations which are currently going on may well have reached fruition. I hope that will be so.
I bear very well in mind the observations made by my right hon. Friend in the form perhaps of a shot across the bows, but I urge him to believe that what we are seeking to do is to work out a rationalisation policy in the current circumstances which prevail in the aviation industry of this country. He has criticised us for departing from previous policy which was laid down both when we were in Government and in Opposition. Circumstances have changed remarkably since that time. I stress that we have to bear in mind the employment prospects of thousands of people, not only those who are employed by British Caledonian but those who are heavily dependent on British Caledonian. It would not have been right for us to have ignored the strong representations made by working people who were faced by the prospect of a close-down of British Caledonian or its absorption into British Airways. These are crucial factors which I am sure we are right to take fully into account.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Three o'clock a.m.